Loading...
Police Advisory Commission Agenda 02-28-2007 AGENDA MONTICELLO POLICE COMMISSION Wednesday - February 28, 2007 - 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order. 2. Introduction of Jim Roberts, applicant for vacancy on the Police Commission. 3. Approve minutes of May 17,2006 Police Commission meeting. 4. Recommendation of Police Commission on purchase of speed trailer by the City. 5. Results of speed study on School Boulevard 6. Update on meeting with MnDOT on TH 25. 7. Review of existing reporting forms, discussion of alternative reporting forms and means of communicating the information to Council and Police Commission. 8. Discussion of priority areas oflaw enforcement activities. 9. Adjourn Police Commission Agenda: 2/28/07 2. Introduction of Jim Roberts. applicant for Police Commission vacancv. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the resignation of Jon Hoff, the City sought applicants for the vacancy on the Police Commission. Two applications were received one of which was from a non-resident and therefore under the provisions of the ordinance establishing the Police Commission did not qualify. Jim Roberts, the other applicant has been invited to attend tonight's meeting and discuss with the Police Commission his interest in the position. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. If the Police Commission is comfortable with qualifications and the ability of Mr. Roberts to fill the vacancy, the Police Commission should approve a recommendation to the City Council to appoint Jim Roberts to fill the vacancy on the Police Commission. 2. Do not recommend the appointment of Jim Roberts to the Police Commission and request the vacancy be advertised again. MINUTES MONTICELLO POLICE COMMISSION Wednesday, May 17, 2006 -7 p.m. Members Present: Dick Slais, Brad Fyle, Dave Gerads and Wayne Mayer. Members Absent: Jon Hoff Others Present: City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, and resident Christine Costillo, Sheriff's Department Representatives: Sheriff Gary Miller, Todd Hoffman, Dan Anselment and Mike Evans. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. and a quorum was present. 2. Aooroval of minutes of Seotember 28. 2005 Police Commission meetinl!. WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 POLICE COMMISSION MEETING. BRADY FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Review of orocess used bv Sheriff's Deoartment to notifv community of the oresence of a sex offender. Sheriff Gary Miller reviewed with commission members the general process that is used by the Sheriff's Department to notifY local community citizens and organizations when a registered sex offender may be residing in the community. Sheriff Miller outlined the various levels of sex offenders and noted that the most common classifications are levels one, two and three, each having a different level of severity in their classification. Sheriff Miller noted that the Minnesota Department of Corrections provides the classification of each registered sex offender and then notifies the local police department if these individuals are present in a community. For individuals classified as level one, the Sheriff's Department may notifY the victims from previous incidents or the witnesses and other law enforcement agencies in the area, but that was the extent of the notification process. For level two offenders, the Sheriffs Department would also notifY establishments such as license day-care centers, school facilities or other care facilities where a sex offender might find a victim. It was noted that this is the limitation placed on the Sheriff's Department and that general public notification is not allowed by their organization. For an individual identified as level three offender, the Sheriff's Department has the authority to inform the entire community which can be done in a number of ways, including a community meeting or by notifYing local officials. Resident, Christine Costillo discussed with commission members the idea of having a community meeting that would provide general information to the public on the process that is used to identifY registered sex offenders and how communities are notified of their presence. She noted that recently there has been a number of rumors going through Monticello that individuals may reside in our community and thought a public informational meeting would be a benefit to the citizens to understand how the process works. Sheriff Miller agreed that a public meeting would be beneficial and expected a large turnout if one could be established in the near future. Sheriff Miller noted he would provide information to the public from their department on the procedures used but would also enlist the help of representatives from the Department of Corrections who would be able to outline how they classify sex offenders and also the process that is used according to the law. In addition, representatives from the Wetterling Foundation would likely be in attendance and could provide additional information on safety procedures that the public could use to identify and protect their families from potential sex offender incidents. Commission members supported the concept of a public meeting and suggested that the Sheriff s Department contact the local school district officials to arrange an appropriate time and location at a school facility for such a community meeting because of the larger attendance expected. Sheriff Miller agreed that his department would coordinate and prepare a meeting agenda and line up the appropriate representatives from the Department of Corrections and the Wetterling Foundation. 4. Consideration of recommendinl! to City Council for the installation of a temnorarv traffic control sil!D at the intersection of Fallon Avenue and School Boulevard until the CSAH 18 Overnass/Interchanl!e nroiect traffic returns to normal. Commission members briefly reviewed with Sheriff's Department representatives the need for additional traffic control measures along School Boulevard, especially at the intersection of Fallon Avenue because of the heavier traffic related to the interchange project. Although it was noted that additional traffic is using School Boulevard as a detour route at this time, the Sheriff's Department representatives did not feel there was necessarily any problems at the Fallon Avenue intersection that would warrant additional traffic signs at this time. With the end of the school year fast approaching, it was felt that placing a stop sign on School Boulevard at Fallon A venue would not be necessary with the likelihood that interchange project will be completed by fall of2006. As a result, it was the consensus of the commission not to request any additional traffic signage along School Boulevard at this time. 5. Consideration of recommendation to City Council for removal of traffic lil!ht at River Street and Hil!hwav 25. Commission members discussed with Sheriff's Department representatives concerns about traffic backups on Highway 25 because of the River Street signal. Sheriff's Department representatives concurred with commission members that traffic flow problems are somewhat hampered by the additional signal at River Street being close to the signal on Broadway and felt that elimination of this signal would be an improvement to traffic flow along Highway 25. Both the Sheriff s Department and commission members recognized that if a signal was eliminated at River Street and Highway 25, westbound traffic on River Street would likely have to be terminated, as allowing any type of right-turn activity onto Highway 25 would be a safety issue because of visibility. Commission members noted that if a signal was removed and a median extended across the intersection, leaving eastbound traffic on River Street having a right-turn access onto Highway 25 could still be feasible because of better visibility in both directions. Assuming that MnDOT would be supportive of eliminating the traffic signal, commission members consensus was to recommend to the City Council the elimination of the signals at River Street and Highway 25 and to have an engineering review done as to whether limited access is warranted from River Street to Highway 25. 6. Consideration of Sheriff Deoartment activity reoort. Sheriff s Department representatives reviewed with commission members the quarterly report of activity in Monticello for 2006 and also comparisons of calls for service for the year 2005 with other communities in Wright County. Sheriff Miller noted that although calls for service have increased over the last three or four years, the increase has not been as dramatic as our population growth would seem to indicate and at this time, he did not feel additional manhours above the 48 hours per day coverage is needed. Commission members noted that the number one concern expressed to commission members related to traffic enforcement and felt that additional enforcement efforts along major routes such as County Road 75 (Broadway) should be done by the Sheriff's Department, especially in the early morning hours and also when individuals are returning home from work. Sherff's Department noted that with the manpower currently available, they wouldn't have the ability to spend a lot of time in the mornings with simply doing traffic enforcement and have more ability to enforcement of speeding in the afternoon. If the City wanted to add additional hours to the coverage, traffic enforcement could be a higher priority. It was the general consensus of commission members that the City Council should consider adding additional hours of coverage that could be earmarked for mainly traffic control enforcement efforts. It was suggested by the Sheriff's Department that if an additional four hours are budgeted for in 2007, they could wait until July I" to utilize an additional full-time officer for the balance of the year which would be equivalent to four hours per day. In discussing the 2007 budget, it was also recommended that the budget include funding for a traffic control radar trailer at an estimated cost of $7,500. With the City having its own radar trailer, we would be able to place the device throughout the community as needed rather than waiting for the use of a trailer from Wright County. 7. Consideration of recommendation on Walt's Pawn Shoo license renewal. Commission members reviewed the status of violations that were occurring at Walt's Pawn Shop especially in regards to reporting by the owner of confiscated items. Commission members reviewed a report from Detective Dave Clemons of the Sheriff's Department who monitors the pawn shops activities and noted that the main concern of the commission members was the unresolved issues relating to Walt Pawn Shop not complying with all of the confiscation notice requirements of the City's ordinance. Commission members requested that the Sheriffs Department provide the committee with an update on a monthly basis on the activities of the pawn shop as to whether they are complying with the city ordinance. No specific action was requested or recommended to the City Council at this time pending further updates from the Sheriff s Department. Miscellaneous Items: Sheriffs Department noted that their office will be having a meeting with residents of the Ridgemount Apartments to discuss recent incidents of theft in the area and invited any commission members who wanted to attend to come to the May 31" meeting at 8 p.m. 8. Adiourn: MOTION WAS MADE TO ADJOURN BY BRAD FYLE AND SECONDED BY DICK SLAIS AT 8:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Recording Secretary Council Agenda: 2/28/07 4. Discussion and recommendation of Police Commission on purchase of speed trailer bv City. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At various times in the past the City has used the speed trailer owned by Wright County to monitor the speed of traffic in a given area. While Wright County has allowed the City use of the trailer when it is available, it has not always been available when the City has requested it. At a previous meeting, in discussing areas in the City where speeding should be monitored, the Council suggested the Police Commission discuss the idea of the City purchasing their own speed trailer. City staff is in the process of getting information on the capabilities and cost of the various models and will include some preliminary information with this agenda. Perhaps Lt. Dan Anselment can also provide some information on the model Wright County has. It is assumed that if the cost is reasonable and the Police Commission and Council feel the need is there, that this piece of equipment would be purchased. While no funds have specifically been budgeted for 2007, the Finance Director could determine once there is an estimated cost whether there are unallocated funds available for this use. In addition there may be some grant funds available that the City could apply for. I. After discussion by the Police Commission of the purchase of a speed trailer make a recommendation to the City Council on whether the City should purchase this equipment. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: OF WRIGHT COUNTY P.O. BOX 33. ST. MICHAEL, MN 55376 763.241.9888 www.safecomm.org Sponsoring Organizations: American Association of Health Plans Minnesota Department of Public Safetjl National Higt'MayTraffic SaletyAdministration Comrmmity Plrtnars: A~ina Hospitals & Clinics Medical Tr3l1sportalion BuftaloHospital BuflakJ Police Department Community Heallh Foundalion ofWrightCounly School Dislricts . 8776uttalo'Hanover'Mantrose .8B3RockfOld ,885 St Michael'Albertvi~e WriglltCoumy WrigN County Highway Depanmerlt WrightCounf\l Publit Heallh WrighlCounty Sheriff's Office February 16, 2007 Dear City Administrator, In the past few years, far too many people have been seriously injured or killed on roads in Wright County. As Wright County continues to grow in population, the number of vehicles on our roadways also increases. One of the most common concems local law enforcement hears is that of traffic and our roads. Safe Communities of Wright County is working hard to make the roads in Wright County as safe as they can be. Established in 1997 to reduce crashes in Wright County, Safe Communities has been successful in helping to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury crashes by an average of 38%. This was done through education and prevention initiatives with a host of partners who are also committed to the cause of reducing crashes. One of the top contributing factors to crashes in Wright County is speed. Unsafe speed is actually the number one factor in single-vehicle crashes in Minnesota. Rural roads, like most of the roads in Wright County, account for 60% of the speed-related fatal crashes. High rates are not the only concem, at 35-MPHthe impact of a car crash is equal to jumping head first off a three-story building. In the. past, many cities in Wright County have borrowed a radar speed trailer from the Wright County Sheriffs Office or Buffalo Police Department to assist in reducing speeds on particular roads. Although this. service is still available, there is far more demand for the equipment than there is equipment available to loan out. In an effort to educate the community about safe driving and appropriate speeds, Safe Communities of Wright County is making mini-grants available to assist cities who wish to purchase their own radar speed trailer. Radar speed trailers have proven to slow traffic, therefore making city streets and neighborhoods safer. It is our goal to fund as many trailers as possible, however due to availability of funding, grants will be made available in phases. The phases, most likely, will be one year apart. Our first phase is making four mini-grants of $1500 each available. If this is something your city would be interested in, please complete the enclosed application and retum it to Safe Communities of Wright County. Be sure to review the grant requirements. The deadline for application is May 1, 2007. All applicants will be notified by June 1, 2007 of the funding decision. If you have questions, please feel free to call me at 763-241-9888. Sincerely, Pat Hacknian Executive Director If you are looking for information on speed trailers, we recommend Kustom Signals. Inc. We do not have a contract or partnership with them, but we know them to be a reliable source. You can vis~ their webs~e at '<WJWkustomsiqnals.com or call 1-800-456-7866. For best pricing ask for Chuck and be sure to mention you are part of Wright County, MN. Safe Communities of Wright County 2006 The Year of the DOT ..... Safe Communities of Wright County partnered with Minnesota Departments of Transportation and Pubic Safety as well as the Wright County Highway Department to in an experimental tailgating project. The Distance Dots project was a series of DOTS and informational signs along a two-mile section of Hwy 55 between Buffalo and Rockford to help motorists identify and maintain safe following distances. When traveling the posted 55 MPH a driver should have two DOTS visible between them and the vehicle they are following. This would allow for the recommended 3-second following distance. A press conference to kick-off the project was a great success with attendance from all the major metro TV stations, local and statewide print and radio. The project was even featured in the New York limes. The Final data collection did find an increase of 23 feet in the center of the project corridor. Average gap increases were 13 feet when combining all data points. MnDOT is still determining if they will repaint or remove the DOTS in the spring of 2007. Drive Wright The Drive Wright Roadway Safety course offered 29 classes reaching 1280 students in 2006. . Course evaluations have shown 97% of participants feel they are more aware of crash risks and traffic safety after taking the course. . Evaluations also indicate 82% will change their driving habits as a result of what they learned. . On seat belt use, 83% of participants indicate they wear a seat belt. Of the individuals who indicated they do not buckle up, 80% of them indicated they would start wearing their seat belt as a result of what they learned in class. Special thanks to Sheriff Gary Miller, Lt. Dan Anselment, Chief Deputy Joe Hagerty, and Sgt. Eric Leander for their continued dedication to this program! OF WRIGHT COUNTY Parent - Teen Driving Presentations Local crash data shows Wright County's youngest and most inexperienced drivers are involved in the highest proportion of crashes. Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for Wright County teens. To help new drivers and their parents prepare for teens getting behind the wheel, SCWC hosts Parent - Teen Driver's Education presentations in cooperation with seven of the local school districts. Dassel-Cokato High School was added to the Wright County High Schools participating in this project. SCWC facilitated 30 presentations in 2006 reaching 1334 students and over 1566 parents. Putting together a Parent - Teen presentation takes a lot of work and commitment. Fifteen volunteers donated 424 hours to Safe Communities of Wright County, a value of $8500. A special thank you to Jon Young, Wright County Public Health and all the volunteers for their dedication to young drivers! Safe Communities of Wright County won the 2006 MN STAR Award given out by the Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety for excellence in traffic safety. The award was given to SCWC for their exemplary work with the Parent-Teen Presentations in Wright County. Safe Communities of Wright County Mini-Grant Application Form for Radar Speed Trailers Requirements . Grant application must be completed in full and postmarked by May 1, 2007. . Grant available only to cities within Wright Coun1y, MN. . Speed trailers must be new. Used or refurbished trailers not eligible for reimbursement . Speed un4s mus1 be trailers Speed displays (pole-mounted or dolly-mounted) are not eligible. . Cities must agree to work with their local law enforcement authomy before placing trailers on public roadways. SONC can assist in this meeting. . Cities agree to place the Safe Communities of Wright Coun1y logo and the local law enforcement logo on the speed traner. . All maintenance and upkeep of the trailer is the responsibil4y of the city purchasing the unit Name of City City Populallon City of Monticello 10,000 est. MaBing Address CitylZip 505 Walnut Street, Suite III Monticello, 55362 Coolact Person Tille Deb Ward Building Department Coordinator Phone Number Emai address 763-271-3223 deb.ward@ci.monticello.mn.us What is the timeframe of wanting to pun:hase the 1raiIer? The City of Monticello is looking to purchase a trailer within 6 months to a year. How wig YOlJl' city use the radar speed !railer? What !raffle safety initiatives has your city been involved In? I unde_nd this is . reimbursement grant. A copy of the receipt or other proof of pun:hase must be submilled to Safe Communities of Wright County before funds are dislribuled to grantees. S' of CO;; R-esentaIive Dale Return completed application by May 1, 2007 to: Safe Communities of Wright County, PO BOX 339, St Michael, MN 55376 - IlUS'IOM SIGNAlS INC. A...._ CFPUIIJCUAm' 5Ql.1PIECT, lie _.........~K...llNM7 11'1--'_ .....1....1-1'. ........ II . ~..lIgn....OOIIlI .....a.ta.....t-.- Quotation Date 02/13/2007 To... DEB WARD MONTICELLO POLICE DEPT 505 WALNUT ST / STE #1 Q!y 1 1 ;'>\: '< \ 1 Quote # 105396756933805 Terms Net 30 This Quote Expires on 05/14/2007 Phone 763-271-3223 ~ 763-295-4404 R~___ ~~:~~~ "'\ ~ 5780.00 MONTICELLO MN 55362 Product Description SMART-LP 1 1 SHIPPING & HANDLING SMART-LP TRAFFIC STATISTICS COMPUTEI\-~.>y AXLE LOCK 'lJ () . <Ioe.\ ~ IlJ~ TA.'\1PERALARM '\0 ~ \ ~ AMBER VIOLATOR ALERT ~ ~ . ~ THRESHOLD SPEED BLANK j , \( ~ $2,195.00 585.00 5225.00 5250.00 5105.00 Pa2e 1 of 1 SubTotal 57,645.00 5780.00 52,195.00 585.00 $225.00 5250.00 5105.00 "', Q,,'\, b ~I-ti. () . '", ~ ~~ * Applicable Sales Tax Not Included Signature ~~~ Toll Free 800-4KUSTOM (800-458-7866) Total $1l,285.00 Police Commission Agenda: 2/28/07 5. Results of speed studv on School Boulevard. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In August, 2005 the City Council adopted a resolution requesting MnDOT to conduct a speed study on School Boulevard from CSAH 18 to TH 25. At that time the speed limit on School Boulevard is 45 mph (30 mph when school was in session). Because of the increased pedestrian traffic in the area due to the development ofWal-Mart and other commercial development along TH 25 it was felt the speed limit should be looked at. The speed study looked at a number of factors include pedestrian traffic, traffic volumes, number of access points, location of schools, safety and other issues that could impact the speed. Bruce Westby, City Engineer, has received the attached correspondence from MnDOT on the results of the speed study. He noted that implementation of the speed limits recommended by MnDOT would not occur until issues and concerns raised about signing are reviewed and addressed. This is an information item and requires no formal action by the Police Commission. B. SUPPORTING DATA: Correspondence from MnDOT dated 1/22/07 , ..."', LV' LV V I I. .JV' ," IV.JLVI I I \,IV I'V, ) ()u r. l. DEPARTMENT: Fiel.d Operations Division STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE MEMORANDUM "IHPRCIV'DJG SAn:n" X9RtX1Gll SOON/) ENGVlEr;;U~ DECISIONS" DATE January 22, 2007 TO Susan Grolh (Attn: Dan Brannan) Assistant State Traffic Engineer Tom Dumont-St Cloud 7D District Traffic Engineer FROM : SUBJECT Speed Zoning School Boulevard - City of Monticello We have completed an engineering and traffic investigation to determine a reasonable and safe speed 1imit for School ~.~_..B.e~11e-.:ard.beIf~~~d!.~5~~S.~~~~~8: ~~r.w~.confi' ~ddllS~~t~~C~.~~~~~~-ll1!r~-' -.._ ... reso ution. you agree WIUl our recommenWlUon, please orwar a specu unu aUwo1iZation to t1ie vlly 0 Moll!icello. BlISed on the resu1ts of our investigation, we recommend lhe following speed limits for School Boulevard: 35 mph between T.R 25 and a point apprl>ximately 250 feet west of Fallon Ave. 45 between a point appmximately 250 feet west ofFalIoo Ave and C.SAR. 18. The recommcinded 3 5 mph section oflhe roadway begins as a 4-lane divided roadway at T.H. 25 and tapers to a two lane roadway near Edmonson Avenue. The suuounding environment consists of commercial/retail prl>pefties between T.H. 25 and Edml>lISOn Avenue, and apartments and single-family homes between Edml>nson Avenue and Fallon Avenue. A speed check taken near Orchard Lane shows 85% speeds 009 mph. With this data and test- drives results, we feel a 35 mph speed limit ro be appropriate for existing conditions. The remaining section of School Boulevard, from approximately Fallon Avenue east to C.S.A.H. 18, is Ii two lane tangent design currently authorized at 45 mph, with an authorized School Speed Limit ono mph when children are present. On the north side of School Blvd. are the Monticello Elementary and:High School Campuses. The south side oflhe roadway consists ora partially wooded park with the remainder of the adjacent property being residential housing with no direct access to School Blvd. A speed check taken west of Eider Avenue revealed 850/0 speeds of 4S lll!!!-.~~ m,ph with a 10 mph pace of3 7-46 mph. Test drives confirm the 45 mph zone and the 30 mph school zone to be appropriate fl>r current oonditions. .. '. The above speed limits are recommended contingent upon curves and hazards being signed with the appropriate warning signs, including appropriate advisol)' plates. The madway should be reviewed for traffic control devices impacted by the recommended speed limit before posting the signs, All'signs aball be in conformance with the MMUTCD. The above speed limits are based on roadway conditions on the date of the recommendation. We have discussed our findings with Chuck Rickart, WSB, and he concurs with oUl'recommendations. cc: file ~tI'ItnhI.~MRi'~J Police Commission Agenda: 2/28/007 6. Update - Meetin!! with MnDOT relatin!! to TH 25. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Engineer, Bruce Westby will be meeting with representatives from MnDOT on Tuesday, February 27,2007 to discuss various issues relating to TH 25 including the timing of the signal lights along this road, the signal at the intersection of River Street and TH 25 and pedestrian traffic. It was anticipated that the new interchange would alleviate some of the traffic concerns on TH 25 but the City is receiving a number of complaints about the timing of the signals and resulting backup of traffic. The amount of pedestrian traffic along TH 25 is also a concern since there are a limited number of controlled intersections and pedestrian crossing of this roadway can be risky. The City applied for a grant to construct pedestrian underpasses/overpasses at various locations in the City including TH 25 but according to Bruce Westby, City Engineer, the City did not receive any grant funds. This is an information item for the Police Commission and does not require any formal action. Police Commission Agenda: 2/28/07 7. Review of existin2 report forms. discussion of alternative reportin2 forms and means of communicatin2 information to the Council and Police Commission. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Sheriff's Department submits activity reports to the City on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. These reports are forwarded to the Police Commission and City Council. Attached is a copy of the annual report for 2006 which is included here so that the Police Commission can review with the Sheriffs Department the information it contains and discuss other information that they would like to get from the reports. The current report form lists the type of call and number of calls received. Staff and Council have discussed being able to extract other information such as locations of incidents. In the case of traffic accidents knowing where they are occurring may be an indication that there is a problem in signage for the area or a design flaw in the road. Knowing where the accidents are occurring would allow staff to review the areas to determine what, if any, corrective work is needed. Also identifying areas of criminal activity would help pinpoint locations where additional patrol may be needed. It is important for the City to recognize and identify trends that are occurring in order to make good management decisions. The annual report that is attached has a comparison in the number of service calls for the past several years. This is statistical data and the numbers don't relay the impact of the data. The purpose of the discussion is to determine what kind of reporting data is available from the County's system and also what kind of information would prove most beneficial to the City in making decisions as far as law enforcement and other public safety matters. As part of this general discussion, it is hoped that dissemination of the information will also be discussed. As indicated, presently the Sheriff's Department reports are submitted to the Council and Police Commission. Are there other steps that should be pursued like a verbal report to the Council and Police Commission? Is there website access on law enforcement activity that would be useful to the City? B. SUPPORTING DATA: 2006 Annual Report 2500. 2000 1500- 1000 500 Wright County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Gary L. Miller City of Monticello Quarterly Report - October 1-December 31 Total Calls Reported Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Average o 2002 2003 Calls Reported October 1-December 31 1841 1918 1991 2190 2158 2020 2004 2005 . Total Calls 2006 Wright County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Gary L. Miller City of Monticello Quarterly Report - October 1-December 31 Service Calls Type of Service Call 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Alarm 93 99 106 144 152 Harassment 41 47 24 33 53 Fire 14 21 23 30 19 Check Welfare 31 33 28 25 25 Medical/Deceased 88 109 121 149 135 Animal Complaint 19 13 22 29 26 Disturb Public Peace 49 55 47 26 47 House/Business/Area Check 13 8 8 9 10 Juvenile Complaint 71 63 50 51 44 Suspicious Incident 71 76 94 75 84 Citizen/Motorist Aid 32 27 27 26 34 Lost/Found Property 42 33 40 35 40 Total 564 584 590 632 669 700 600 -j 500 400 I 300~ I 200 I 100 o ' 2002 2003 2004 . Service Calls 2005 2006 Wright County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Gary L. Miller City of Monticello Quarterly Report - October 1-December 31 Traffic Calls Type of Traffic Call 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Speeding 62 35 67 66 76 Careless/Reckless/No Insurance 6 9 3 0 43 Stop/Semaphore Violation 22 13 22 31 14 OAR/OASIDAC 30 49 37 120 64 Drivers License Violations 15 21 25 14 26 Vehicle Registration 18 24 13 35 34 No Proof Insurance 48 52 68 28 34 Equipment Violation 5 6 8 14 13 OW.I. 38 24 34 27 26 Miscellaneous Traffic 152 151 129 259 352 Total 396 384 406 594 682 700 600 500 400 300 200--- 100 o 2002 2003 2004 2005 . Traffic Calls 2006 Wright County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Gary L. Miller City of Monticello Quarterly Report - October 1-December 31 Motor Vehicle Crashes Type of Crash 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Property Damage 68 68 60 100 59 Personal Injury 6 5 5 4 3 Car/Animal 2 7 6 10 5 Hit & Run 15 12 19 13 9 Fatality 0 0 1 0 0 Total 91 92 91 127 76 140 -----..------- 120 ------------ 100 80 60 I 40 20 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 . MV Crashes 2004 122 274 396 2005 105 216 321 2006 118 192 310 Crime Part Part I Crimes Part II Crimes Total Part I & II Crimes 500 400 300 200 100 o Wright County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Gary L. Miller City of Monticello Quarterly Report - October 1-December 31 I , ~- I 2002 Part I & II Crimes 2002 127 279 406 2003 2003 151 251 402 2004 2005 2006 . Part I & II Crimes Wright County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Gary L. Miller City of Monticello Quarterly Report - October 1-December 31 Part I Crimes Part I Crime 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Murder 0 1 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 1 1 0 0 1 Robbery 0 0 3 0 0 Aggravated Assault 3 5 2 3 3 Burglary 2 9 11 10 6 Larceny/Theft 116 126 98 87 104 Motor Vehicle Theft 5 8 7 5 3 Arson 0 1 1 0 1 Total 127 151 122 105 118 160 -1 ---------- 140' 120 100 80 60 :~T 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 . Part I Crimes .- Part II Crimes Wright County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Gary L. Miller City of Monticello Quarterly Report - October 1-December 31 Part II Crime 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Other Assaults 16 17 20 18 14 Forgery/Counterfeit 6 9 9 9 10 Theft/Fraud 14 4 10 11 17 Stolen Property Crimes 3 3 0 3 1 Criminal Damage Property 73 41 57 38 38 Weapons Violations 3 5 8 5 4 Other Sex Crimes 1 0 1 0 0 Narcotics 28 48 53 33 26 Family/Children 4 2 6 4 1 D.U.1. 38 24 34 27 26 Liquor Law Violations 26 23 20 16 20 Disorderly Conduct 18 17 18 15 11 Other 49 58 38 37 24 Total 279 251 274 216 192 300 250 200 150 100 50 o 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 . Part II Crimes .. Wright County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Gary L. Miller City of Monticello Quarterly Report - October 1-December 31 Criminal Arrests Type of Crime 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Part I 14 37 15 21 16 Part II 182 195 201 160 127 Warrants 53 51 54 39 38 Total 249 283 270 220 181 300 ----------- 250 -----------..- 200.. 150 100 50 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 . Criminal Arrests Police Commission Agenda: 2/28/07 8. Discussion of priority areas of law enforcement activities. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City deals with residents concerns about a number oflaw enforcement issues. The Sheriff's Department is responsible for enforcement of traffic laws, criminal activity, enforcement of City code as well education and public awareness issues. With all those areas of responsibility how does the Sheriff's Department prioritize their enforcement activity. For example, is an illegally parked vehicle given the same enforcement attention as a speeding vehicle? While most people would agree the speeding vehicle poses a greater threat to health and safety, most people would also want to see enforcement of activities that are not necessarily a safety threat such as the illegally parked vehicle or the barking dog. There are a number of points for discussion in this item. Is there is a priority list for enforcement activities? How does the Sheriff's Department handle special enforcement activities requested by the contract city? Are there things the City can do that would ease the enforcement load? How do you create the perception for city residents that enforcement activity is carried out appropriately whether the nature of the crime is serious or minor? Police Commission Agenda: 5/16/07 3. U date on Ci urchase of s eed trailer. (BW) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This item is in follow-up to agenda item #4 from the February 28, 2007 Police Commission meeting at which time the Police Commission recommended approval of purchasing a speed trailer to the City Council up to a maximum of $9,000. At the April 23, 2007 City Council meeting the Council approved a motion to purchase a SMART Model 600 trailer-mounted speed monitoring device from Kustom Signals, Inc. in the amount of $6,530, not including sales tax. This device has a 12" tall LED display, removable trailer tongue, alarm system, cable axel lock and a statistical data package for gathering traffic volume and speed data for analysis purposes. The City will also need to purchase a data card reader to extract the data from the trailer's memory card at a cost of about $150, bringing the total cost to about $6,680. Following Council approval the City submitted a grant application in the amount of $1,500 to Safe Cornrnunities of Wright County as discussed at the February 28`h Police Commission meeting. This is an information item only and requires no formal action by the Police Commission. B. SUPPORTING DATA: Informational literature for SMART Mode1600 from Kustom Signals, Inc. Cast estimate for SMART Model 600 from Kustom Signals, Inc.