Police Advisory Commission Agenda 03-01-1995AGENDA
MONTICELLO POLICE COMMISSION
Wednesday, March 1, 1995 - 7 p.m.
Members: Jim Fleming, David Gerads, Warren Smith, Liz DeMarais, Brian
Stumpf
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held Wednesday, November 16,
1994.
3. Consideration of reviewing preliminary draft of a study comparing
contracting for police protection services versus establishing a local police
department.
4. Review of recently-adopted skateboard/rollerblade ordinance.
5. Qther items for discussion.
6. Adjournment.
LJ
Police Commission Agenda - 3/1/95
3. Consideration of reviewin relimina draft of a stud concernin
contractin versus local lice de artment. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As some of you may recall from previous meetings, commission members
felt it would be a good idea to prepare a study that would address the pros
and cans and analyze the costs of our present contracting operation for
police protection versus establishing a local police department. Chairman
Smith has prepared a general outline structure for the report, and I was
able to obtain some additional information from surrounding counties that
provide contracting services to various communities, along with obtaining
budget information from neighboring communities similar to Monticello that
have their own police department. Since it's been a number of months since
we have discussed this study, we are hopeful that we can meet as a group
and make changes along with providing additional input so that we can
finish a report and deliver it to the City Council for their information.
Probably the main issue in this study will concern the cost analysis of
contracting versus having our own department. I think from the
information that is included for your review, the study so far shows that
contracting is still a more economical method of providing police protection
services for Monticello. For example, our net cost for 1994 for contracting
24-hour per day coverage was less than half of what the City of Buffalo was
spending, slightly more than the City of Big Lake but substantially less
than the similarly-sized community of Waite Park. Likewise, the
contracting rate for 1994 was $30.50 an hour, which is still competitive with
other counties such as Anoka and Carver Counties, which are slightly
higher. In my discussions with the Sherburne County Sheriff, they were
establishing a rate in 1993 of $24, but they do not get too heavily involved
in contracting at this point, as they only have one small contract with the
City of Zimmerman. I think it's safe to say that if a county does an
accurate job of evaluating their cost, the rate would be closer to the $30+
amount rather than low $20s as Sherburne County had originally quoted.
After each of you have had a chance to review these figures and the work
copy draft report, it would be beneficial if you have any additional
comments or points you feel we should include in the final report. If any of
you can think of pros and cons on contracting versus local police
departments, please jot them down and bring your notes to the meeting. As
I noted, we would like to come to a consensus on information to include in
the report and possibly prepare a final draft for the commission to review in
the next few weeks.
1
C7
ANALYZING THE PROS AND CONS OF A POLICE FORCE
THE MONTICELLO POLICE COMMISSION'S
COMPARISON STUDY OF A COUNTY CONTRACTING
VS. ESTABLISHING A LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT
Preliminary Notes -Jan 1994; Nov 1994
1995 Members of the Monticello Police Commission are:
L~
Warren Smith, Chairrperson
James Fleming, Vice Chairperson
David Gerads, Secretary
Liz DesMarais
Brian Stumpf, City Council Representative
POLSTUDY.NTS: 2/23/95
The number one question asked of the Police Commission and the City Council
regarding public safety is, "Why doesn't the City of Monticello have a local police
department?" The question is really comprised of two specific allegations:
Wouldn't we be better off with our own force from both a ublic safet osition
and an economic stand oint? The factors of consideration in trying to answer
these implications are complex. In a major effort to fulfill our assignment to be an
advisory committee to the City Council, the Police Commission has undertaken a
comprehensive study of these issues to arrive at a determination.
1. Collect and analyze data from other cities in Minnesota with comparable
demographics to Monticello and from adjacent communities.
Sr1A~.Tl~~-
2. Compile practical, political, and philosophical considerations of police
protection. Pros and cons to each system.
3. Estimate start-up costs in establishing a new city police department.
~~~~' ;~ ~/' Detail the history of police protection in the city of Monticello as it pertains
#,~~~ \ ~/' to this study.
A~ 5. Conclusions.
1. Collect and anal ze data from other cities in Minnesota with com arable
demographics to Monticello. (In short: What would it cost us to start up
and run our own police department? And how do those projections compare
to what the contract with the Sheriffs Department is costing?
Have City Administrator contact target cities/counties for financial
information. Potential cities: Big Lake, Buffalo, and Waite Park. Counties
to include Sherburne, Anoka, and Carver.
2. Com ile radical olitical and hiloso hical considerations of olice
rotection. Pros and cons to each s stem.
Practical Considerations:
City--Practical considerations included start-up costs in organizing a new
department and budgeting; farming a committee to determine procedures in
establishing a new police department, as well as a departmental operating
manual; making decisions an how large the local force would be; citing an
office; hiring a police chief and deputies; drafting an operating budget;
purchasing equipment, supplies, uniforms, etc.; determining fines?; setting
police coverage. J ~ ~ fS~ ~~
POLSTUDY.NTS: 2/23/95 Page 2
Count--these things are in place.
• Political Considerations:
City--There are two significant questions to be addressed. The first is, does
havin a local force im rove ublic safet ? Secondly, is having a police chief
directly answerable to the Citv Council more or less_advantaseous to the
community's benefit?
_.. ,
0~;~f~~~c_.
,,
The primary'problem that needs to be considered here is whether or not
public safety is improved because hometown officers are familiar faces to
local residents and business owners. Strange faces make us wary;
unfamiliar faces wearing police uniforms make us uncomfortable. It goes
without saying that familiarity adds a degree of comfort. How important is
this to public safety? It seems to be a matter of degrees. Cold and distant
officers--na matter who they represent--put people off. Over-friendly
deputies run the risk of becoming non-objective. The major point in favor Qf
having local police is that citizens feel that the force is a part of the
community, not an outsider entity that comes in to enforce the laws. Also,
that when you are a part of a community, you also know the community
better, and this pays off when it comes to crime prevention and
apprehension.
County--Sheriff Donald Hozempa, several years ago, responded directly to
Monticello's concern of unfamiliarity by initializing a policy that officers
patroling the streets of Monticello consider it a long-term position. The plan
was elementary and direct: ~ officers become more familiar with a
place while citizens become more comfortable when they begin to recognize
regular faces. How long have the current officers been in place?
1.'
2.
3.
(over~_ f~ liaxzty can cause complacency?)
Comment: If Monticello were to hire a new police chief and deputies,
chances are good that these people would come from outside of Monticello;
hence, the point of familiarity would be negated. In time, if all members
were required to establish residency within the city, a local police force
might achieve a higher degree of familiarity. However, in any department,
city or county, there will always be turnover, as deputies (and officers) come
and go.
Is it better to have a police chief directly answerable to the City Council...or
an independent county sheriff in charge of enforcing the laws? This is a
subjective political question that cannot be answered with statistics. It is
possible that a police chief will try to keep a Gity Council happy with his or
POLSTUDY.NTS: 2/23/95 Page 3
her performance by telling them things they want to hear; hence, the risk of
politics influencing justice. The county system places police work beyond
those particular politics; yet there is no system that eliminates politics
completely. Under the present county system, the City is not without a
voice, because the City is paying the bill and, therefore, has direct input
into public safety matters. Indeed, the establishment of this Police
Commission was to create unproved communication and broader
understanding between the County and the City. Track record of x years
has been exemplary. There have been no major disagreements between the
City Council and the Sheriffs Department, and the County has always
responded to the City's needs, usually working together to forge solutions to
public safety problems. Perhaps the most outstanding example of the two
entities working together was the elimination of the cruising and hanging
out (loitering) problem in 19$x. (The story). Amore recent example:
skateboarding ordinance?
3. Estimate of start-u cost.
One of the primary factors as far as financial considerations are concerned
should the City of Monticello ever convert to its own police department
would be the start-up cost in establishing the department. Some of the
obvious items would include purchasing a number of automobiles along with
all the various equipment that would be needed such as guns, radar
equipment, radio communication equipment, and other normal supplies for
the department personnel. While a large majority of this cost would be a
one-time expense, the amount could be substantial.
In Monticello's case, the establishment of a local police department would
likely result in the City building or acquiring additional space for the police
department. Current government facilities would not appear to have
sufficient space far a police department and would likely cause an addition
to be needed to the city hall facility or renting or buying a separate facility
for such a use. Although this cost is unknown, it would add hundreds of
thousands to the initial start-up cost if a facility was built for a police
department use.
Questions may also be raised whether the City would be better off
financially by being able to keep the majority of the fine monies collected
and whether this would substantially lower the actual net operating cost of
a police department. In reviewing this information from other surrounding
communities, it appears that, generally speaking, the fine monies generated
are offset by the legal cost of prosecuting the offenses. For example, the
City of Buffalo estimates it will generate $26,500 in fine revenue but
expects to spend $20,000 in courtJprosecution/legal cost. The net result is
that it is not a large revenue source far the City of Buffalo ($6,500) in
comparison to their overall budget. Likewise, the City of Waite Park
expects to collect $56,000 in fines but will spend $42,000 in legal fees.
POLSTUDY.NTS: 2/23/95 Page 4
Generally speaking, it does not appear that fine monies by itself can be used
as a substantial source of revenue to offset operating cost, as legal fees
absorb mast of the revenue generated.
In analyzing the fine revenue that is currently generated in the city of
Monticello that is returned to the County, we are averaging approximately
$25,~~0 in fine revenue. If this amount of revenue was an accurate
reflection of what we could expect with our own police department, it is also
assumed our legal expenses to obtain this revenue would likewise be
$20,000 or more.
4. History of the Police Department in Monticello.
5. Conclusions.
No system employed by the City Council is going to eliminate crime, stop
speeding, and guarantee complete public safety. That's a fact of life. The
question before us is about degrees--when weighing the factors of cost and
effectiveness, what is the best system for the best price to fight crime,
monitor traffic, and ensure public safety in Monticello? Upon examining
and considering the information available to us, the Monticello Police
Commission gym{ akes the fpollowing statements: L f~
~~ G~''~~,~1~.5 `'rivv~e. _~6->-~, ,0"y'.~~`°-'„~ ~ ~'p ~YZo ~v~.,,2~ `f'--~-p S~-I`r n~ca rout' e-~a.n..
~ ~r.o PF~1 ~~ T~ ~) ` U
-~:~ S~_-~~- r~ ~ t t .s ~-rL~ ~ ~~ .
~~-z-"~'~",
..
%l~" I
~- r ~,
~ ~~~ ~ ~
fp~LZ2.,~r..
!V ~~
P®LSTU~Y.NTS: 2/23/95 Page 5
•
•
CITY OPERATED
POLICE DEPARTMENT
COST COMPARISON SUMMARIES
1994 Budget
(contract}
Buffalo Bi Lake Waite Park Monticello
DIRECT EXPENDITURES
1) PerSannel 9176 hrs
@ 30.50/hr
a) Police chief, patrolmen, etc. $403,736 $182,600 $273,875 $279,868
see em to ee breakdown below
2) Benefits
a) Benefits $75,114 $44,000 $86,404
b Clothin allowance $4,000 $2,400 $3,316
c Other - trainin 5 400 1 200 $6 850
3) Equipment
a) New vehicle(s) and/or annual deprec. cost $31,250 $9,000
b Gas, oil, maintenance $17,000 $11,000 $16,750
c Insurance (vehicle & eneral liabilit $34,411 $25,000
d) Other equip -radios, guns, radar, mist) $6,500 $3,300
e Office a ui - com uters, t ewriters, etc. $2,350 $23,000
f Patrol Su lies $1 150
4) Office/Building Costs
a Rent or building costs $7,220
b) Utilities, heat, hone $2,000 $2,600 $5,908
c Su lies -office ex ense $15,250 $5,100 $1,600
d Miscellaneous $21,450 $2,900 $6,480
5)._ CourUProsecution/Le al Costs 20 000 24 000 42 000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$633,1111 $314,520
$478,483 ~ $279,868
POLICE.WK4: 02/23/95
(does not ind
liab. ins. costs)
Page 1
r:
Buffalo
Bi Lake
Waite Park (contract)
Monticello
REVENUES
1 State aid
$36,000
$20 000
$32,700
$24 000
2 a Court fines $25,000 $50,D00 $50,450
b Parkin fines $1,500 $500 $6,360
3) Other -miscellaneous
a Trainin costs reimbursement
$2,500
$2,300
b Police reports co ies) $500
c) Special police services $2,000
d Other, Dare Pro ram revenue, etc. $15,000 $4,500
e Sale of ro er 2 000
REVENUES
ANNUAL NET OPERATING COSTS (1994)
$548,611 ~ $239,520 ~ $38fi,673 ~ $255,868
(9178 hrs @
•
L_ J
MISC DATA -NUMBER OF E MPLOYEES
Chief 1 1
Sergeant(s)
Investi ator s 1
1 1
Patrolmen - FT 7 3/ 4 4
Patrolmen - PT 2
Secreta s
Reserve officers
Total FT E uivalent De t Em to eas 1 1/
12 1
6
6+ reserve 1
7
POLICE.WK4: 02!23/95
Page 2
C05T COMPARISON OF CONTRACTED SERVICES
FOR POLICE PROTECTION
1994
(24-HOUR DAILY COVERAGE)
•
•
L~
Hourly Cost Anoka
Coun
$34/hr
X 8760 hrs Sherburne
Count
$24
(1993 rate) Carver
Count
$35.86/hr
17
C~
7~
X$ Wright
Count
$30.50
~
$297,863 .
.
.
$314,134 $267,180
Cities Serviced Ham Lake Zimmerman 11 Communities ~f1~-~- ~
E. Bethel only ± Tawnshia ~ ~ k I G ~ c~
Andover Examples: `~~~p D
(1) Other Chanhassen
Chaska
Norwood
Young America
Victoria
Watertown
Cologne
Hamburg
Mayer
Wacania
Lake Tw
NOTE: Anoka and Carver Counties may allow same of their contract
cifies fo keep some of the fine dollar revenue, which would lower the
hourly cost slightly.
X114
POLCOST; D2/22/95
POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPARISONS
•
It should be noted that the annual police
own departments, i.e., Buffalo, Big Lake,
general administration by city hall.
Another factor that will play a role if Monticello ever decides on its own
department will be the "start-up" casts for vehicles and equipment. Also needed
would be appropriate office facilities. (~~P.~,~,: ~Z~,~. ~~/'~~CS~;/C ~-- ~, S~J
When comparing "contracting" versus city police, we need to keep in mind the
"nonvisual" behind-the-scenes activities such as:
budgets for those communities with their
Waite Park, did not include any costs for
a) additional investigators for difficult crimes
b) manpower for emergencies (backup)
•
C.
With our current contracting arrangement, Wright County is responsible for all
investigation costs, no matter how many personnel may be involved in a case. The
same is true far emergencies, i.e., the County provides all necessary manpower.
This is not to say that County Sheriff Department assistance wouldn't be provided
to the City if we had our awn police department, but extra help for "special
projects," like when we decided to blanket the town to curb "cruising," would
probably be the City's responsibility, not the Wright County Sheriffs.
POLICE.NTS: 2/22/95
Police Commission Agenda - 3/1/95
4. Review of recentl -ado ted akateboard/rollerblade ordinance.
(R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the November 1994 Police Commission meeting, a recommendation was
made that the City Council consider adopting an ordinance amendment that
would establish regulations on where skateboarding, rollerblading, and
other similar activities could take place in the city. The City Council was
presented with the ordinance amendment as recommended by the Police
Commission, which would have prohibited skateboards and rollerblading in
a defined central business district (downtown area). During the Cauncil
discussion on this ordinance proposal, there were concerns that the
ordinance would be too strict in eliminating all rollerblading, etc., on
sidewalks in commercial districts. During the discussion, it was
recommended that there may not be the need to be quite as restrictive in
the ordinance, and it was recommended that the language be changed to
prohibit any type of reckless skateboarding or rollerblading on any
sidewalk, street, or public parking lot. It was felt this would be a sufficient
tool for the police department to use if someone was causing a problem
without necessarily prohibiting all individuals from even rollerblading
through the downtown area on their way from one spot to another.
Although no action is needed by the Commission, I have enclosed a copy of
the revised adopted ordinance for your information.
~ ~
LJ
a
•
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2Fr3
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY
ORDAINS THAT TITLE S OF THE MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE
BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER RELATING TO
SKATEBOARD AND ROLLERBLADE USE:
CHAPTER 10
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATION
OF SIDEWALKS AND STREETS, PROHIBITING THE USE
OF DEVICES KNOWN AS SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATESBLADES,
AND SCOOTERS ON SIDEWALKS AND STREETS
IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
SECTION:
8-].0-1: Definitions
$-10-2: Prohibited Areas
8-10-3: Observation of Rules of the Road
8-10-4: Violations
8-1p-1: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, whenever they occur
in this ordinance, are defined as follows:
(A) CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT means any area of the city within a B-3
(highway business) zoning district or B-4 (regional business) zoning district.
(B) ROLLER SKATESBLADES means a shoe with wheels attached or a device
with wheels which is designated to be attached to a shoe.
(C) SKATEBOARDS means a wheeled device designed to transport a rider in a
standing position, which device is not otherwise secured to the rider's feet or
shoes.
(D) SCOOTER: Afoot-operated vehicle consisting of a narrow board mounted
between two wheels, tandem, with an upright steering handle attached to
the front wheel.
(E) OPERATE means to ride on or control the operation of a skateboard, roller
skates/blades, or scooter.
Ordinance Amendment No. 263
Page 2
(F) OPERATOR means every person who operates or is in actual physical
control of a skateboard, roller skates/blades, or scooter.
5-10-2: PROHIBITED AREAS: No person shall ride or use a skateboard,
roller skates/blades, or scooter:
(A) On any public sidewalk, street, or any public parking lot situated in the
Central Business District in any careless, reckless, or negligent manner so
as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safety of any person or property
of any other person, or
(B) On any other public or private property of another without the express
permission to do so by the owner or occupant of said property, or
(C) On any state highway in the city of Monticello.
8-10-3: OBSERVATION OF RULES OF THE ROAD:
(A) The operator of a skateboard, roller skates/blades, or scooter emerging from
• any alley, driveway, or building upon approaching a sidewalk or the
sidewalk area extending across any alleyway, shall yield the right-of--way to
all pedestrians approaching the sidewalk or sidewalk area and upon
entering the roadway shall yield the right-of--way to all vehicles approaching
on the roadway.
(B) No person operating a skateboard, roller skates/blades, or scooter shall
attach the same or the person of the operator to any vehicle upon a
roadway.
(C) Every person operating a skateboard, roller skates/blades, or scooter upon a
roadway shall ride as close as possible to the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway.
(D) No person shall use a skateboard, roller skates blades, or scooter upon a
public street, sidewalk, or other roadway after sunset and before sunrise.
8-10-4: VIOLATIONS: Any person who violates any provision of this
ordinance shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. In addition, any
peace officer who observes any person violate any provisions of this ordinance is
authorized to seize the offender's roller skates/blades, skateboard, or scooter and
to hold same at the Wright County Sheriffs Department or City Police
Department. In the event of such seizure, the offender, if an adult, may secure
Ordinance Amendment No. 263
Page 3
the return of the article seized after twenty-four (24) hours have elapsed since the
seizure. In the case of a minor, the article seized shall be returned only to the
parent or guardian of such minor offender after twenty-four (24) hours have
elapsed since the seizure.
Published in the Monticello Times an 12/8/94.
•