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.