City Of Woodland City Council Meeting Agenda Summary Sheet

Transcription

1 City Of Woodland City Council Meeting Agenda Summary Sheet Agenda Item: Adopt Ordinance No re: for a Permanent Levy Lid Lift to fund 2 new police officers and a Ballot Measure for Nov. 8 th General Election. Cost of Item: TBD BARS #: Amount Budgeted: Unexpended Balance: 0BAgenda Item #: ( K ) Action For Agenda of: 06/06/2016 Department: Clerk/Treasurer Date Submitted: 06/02/2016 Description: Department Supervisor Approval: Mari E. Ripp, Clerk-Treasurer / s / Committee Recommendation: 5/9/2016 Finance Committee recommends to forward to council (see below). Agenda Item Supporting Narrative (list attachments, supporting documents): Memo-Police Chief Draft Ord 1365 Summary Statement/Department Recommendation: At the Council Retreat held April 23 rd the Council discussed funding for the police department and other needs. The asked that the Finance Committee look at funding options and a Levy Lid Lift. On 5/9/2016 the Finance Committee met and discussed options for a Levy Lid Lift. We met with the County Assessor Terry McLaughlin and Janeene Niemi and discussed the process for a Levy Lid Lift. The council will need to consider information for a one time lid lift or a permanent lift for a period of 6 years. The Finance Committee recommendation was to authorize staff to prepare an ordinance and related items for the 6/6/2016 council agenda re: for a permanent Levy Lid Lift to fund 2 new police officers (and/or a lieutenant position) for either an Advisory Vote or Ballot Measure for Nov. 8 th General Election. Staff will put together a 6 year projection of the cost for officers (2) and related equipment, training, etc. as well as a cost per 1,000 for a $250k home. The City currently is at $2.1175/1000 or $1,330,007 and the MAXIMUM allowable is $3.10/1000 or $1,947,033 which leaves $617,015 available or an increase of $.9825/1000 = $246 on a home valued at $250,000 if at the MAXIMUM. The costs to fund 2 police officer and related expenses is estimated at $365,000 (2017 rates).

2 So this would be a levy rate (2017) of Home $250, City AV Levy $ Levy Property Payable Rate Tax ,075,248 $1,330,007 $ $ Max 628,075,248 $1,947,033 $ $775 Scenario #1 628,075,248 $617,026 $ $246 at MAX Scenario#2 628,075,248 $365,000 $ $145 to fund 2 officers Additional Cost to fund tax amount 2 officers

3 If the City wants to place an item(s) on the November 8 th General Election, the ballot and related information must be to the County Auditor on or before August 2 nd. So the council would need to have the ordinance and related items adopted at the July 5 and 18 th council meetings. Recommend approval to adopt Ordinance No re: for a Permanent Levy Lid Lift to fund 2 new police officers and a Ballot Measure for Nov. 8 th General Election.

4 To: Mari Ripp, Clerk-Treasurer From: Phil Crochet, Chief of Police Date: May 11, 2016 Subject: New Hire Costs Woodland Police Department I have been requested to provide projected cost figures for two additional Police Officer positions. This memorandum will provide such information to address this specific inquiry. 1. Salary: Assuming an initial offer of placement at Step 3, annual salary for two officers will be $135,000. Step 1 or 2 are more likely beginning rates; however, our most recent hire will start at Step 3 so this is a conservative projection. 2. Benefits are calculated at 52% of salary, for a total of $70, Personnel benefits: contractually each officer will receive $850 to spend on uniforms and some limited equipment items. Other contractual benefit costs are not likely to be incurred with new hires so the total in this category is $1, Two patrol vehicles will have a one-time cost of $80,000. Vehicles rotate roughly every six years so during the life of this projection ( ) the rotation costs will not be a factor. However, two additional vehicles will increase our average annual budget for fleet by about $13,300 to account for the eventual rotation needs. 5. Equipment: Costs to equip the two officers will be roughly $40-60,000. Because we will likely need to purchase additional work stations, the $60,000 figure should be used for planning purposes. 6. Training costs will amount to about $9,000 per new hire for the first year, unless we hire officers who are already licensed in Washington State. Our in-house training costs are about $5,000 per officer and Basic Law Enforcement Academy costs are about $4,000 each. We should plan on a total of $18,000 in this category. Therefore, the total cost to equip and train two new officers will be approximately $364,900. I have included my already-submitted critical needs assessment as it contains much of this information. PJC

5 To: William Finn, Mayor From: Phil Crochet, Chief of Police Date: April 27, 2016 Subject: Staffing Analysis/Critical Needs Woodland Police Department I completed the paragraphs below in May 2015 at the request of Council. As I begin to prepare the Department for the 2017 budget year and beyond, I have made some additions to my previous analysis. The new text begins after the table on page 4. Currently, the department s authorized sworn personnel strength is ten employees: six officers assigned to patrol, two sergeants, one detective, and one chief. The officers are split between two teams, each comprised of three officers who provide coverage for four consecutive days with a sergeant assigned to each team. The detective works primarily during the day as does the chief. If we are to remove one sworn position, consideration should be given to each rank: officer, detective and sergeant. The following paragraphs will outline each scenario. Removing an officer position would require a substantial change in working conditions. We would be able to provide 24-7 coverage with only five officers; however, we could do so only by requiring at least two of the five officers to work various shifts each work week. For example, an officer might work two day shifts and three evening shifts in one five-day work week. The impact to employee health and morale makes this a poor choice. Removing a sergeant position is an equally poor choice. Our current schedule allows for sergeant coverage seven days per week. Although we do not have supervisory coverage at all times, the sergeants are able to work with every employee on his shift for several hours every day. Moving to an organizational chart with only one supervisor would reduce supervisory coverage by 50%, resulting in a substantial increase in liability to the city. On the other hand, removing the detective position, while not optimal, would be the least disruptive option of the three. The organizational chart would remain almost intact but patrol coverage would be negatively impacted.

6 Our detective is used primarily to investigate criminal cases that require extended or in-depth follow up, that by nature are time-intensive. By using a detective in this manner, we allow our officers to spend more time patrolling. In addition to investigating cases that originate from patrol officers, the detective has begun to execute proactive drug investigations. He is trained in street crimes, has worked with the drug task force, and has formed a process by which to utilize informants in narcotics investigations. The detective plays a crucial role in addressing our two most consistent complaints: officers are not on the street enough and the existence of open-air drug markets. In addition to the above challenges, the loss of our detective (or any other single position) would have other consequences. First, the burden of additional administrative duties would be increased for other employees. Because there are few support positions within the department, each officer is given tasks outside their regular patrol duties. These tasks include fleet acquisition and maintenance, IT support, training coordination, inventory control, safety committee liaison, school liaison, reserve officer coordinator, and other administrative duties. The tasks of reserve officer coordinator and safety committee liaison, currently assigned to the detective, would have to be reassigned to other employees who are already burdened with tasks that keep them in the office for a considerable portion of their 42-hour work weeks. Second, the detective position provides our best avenue to pursue narcotics sales within the city. The loss of the position would cripple our efforts in this area. Another issue to be considered regarding the removal of a position is that we are already below the accepted national standard for sworn personnel strength. The national standard is two officers per thousand population; the average for small cities is increased to 2.4 per thousand per the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC). Currently, Woodland PD is below 1.7 per thousand; the loss of one position would drop our ratio to 1.5 per thousand. At that point we would have to consider the reduction or removal of currently-provided services and a change in public expectation. In fact, some of those considerations will need to be made if our sworn personnel strength remains at ten. Even at our current sworn personnel strength, the department cannot continue to provide its current level of services into 2016 and beyond. The above factors do not address Woodland s historically high crime rate. Woodland enjoys a diverse economy, which contributes to higher crime. For example, Walmart and Safeway report

7 a high number of thefts, most of which require an arrest and often an investigation of some sort. In addition, the interstate highway brings additional challenges as it increases our daily population and has a direct influence on crime. Woodland s Group A crimes as reported in 2013 by the WASPC occur at a rate of 88.9 per 1,000 population. As a comparison the state average is 52 per thousand, Ridgefield is 25.1 per thousand, La Center is 48.4 and Kalama is Those statistics are not an anomaly as those from 2012 were very similar. It is clear from those numbers that the Woodland Police Department should be staffed closer to the recommended sworn personnel strength of 2.4 per 1,000 population. A final consideration is a legal one: mandatory bargaining subjects. Work hours, health and safety, work assignments, and many other topics are all mandatory bargaining subjects; those items cannot be changed or altered unless and until the police union and the City of Woodland agree to them. Some of the ramifications of the loss of a position, such as officers working mixed shifts, would be very difficult to successfully bargain. Given the above considerations, it is my recommendation that we fill both currently-vacant officer positions and plan to phase in an additional four officers beginning in 2016 when our population should reach 6,000. Fourteen sworn employees would allow us 2.3 officers per 1,000 population, which would move us closer to the accepted strength of 2.4 per thousand. Considering our high rate of crime and expected continued growth, the additional personnel is well justified. In conclusion, the Woodland Police Department is poised, with its current sworn strength of ten officers, to provide reasonable law enforcement and public safety service to its citizens. Anecdotally, our response time is adequate and the level of service in response to emergency calls is high. Proactive efforts to address one of our major complaints, drug dealing, will improve because we have the proper organizational and procedural infrastructure in place. Unfortunately, with our current sworn personnel strength, our second major complaint, patrol visibility, cannot be adequately addressed. If one position is lost, we will lose with it our ability to address drug dealing in a meaningful way. Further, without additional sworn personnel, it will be necessary to reduce services, change public expectations, or both. For that reason, consideration should be given to hiring an additional four sworn officers, phased in over a period of two years. Please find below an abbreviated spreadsheet illustrating the above points.

8 Sworn Strength Service Considerations Budgetary Impact Nine No proactive narcotic enforcement; considerably decreased patrol time; increased admin tasks; decreased quality of criminal cases; increased overtime; would need to change public expectations; personnel strength well below national average $101,250 salary savings; increased overtime est. $8,000 +/-; net savings of approximately $93,250 annually Ten Current services would continue for 2015; consideration for service cuts in 2016; possibly would need to change public expectations, specifically regarding patrol visibility; personnel strength remains below national average Twelve Current services would continue for 2016; would remain under standard for small cities (2/1,000 v 2.4/1000) Budget would remain unchanged but overtime would increase due to additional call load, which would require holdover Budget would increase $202,500 for salaries annually, plus a onetime increase of $80,000 for vehicles, $20,000 for equipment, and $20,000 for office start-up. Fourteen Current services would continue for the next several years; consideration could be given to designating a community services position Budget would increase $405,000 for salaries annually, plus a onetime increase of $160,000 for vehicles, $40,000 for equipment, and $40,000 for office start-up I have prepared a spreadsheet, attached to this document, containing the critical needs for Police projected through I will give a short summary explanation of each Critical Need and Want. The Department is facing a critical staffing shortage. Our community s crime rate, arrest data, geographical positioning, and population justify a staffing level of at least 2.4 officers per thousand. To reach that level we need to add four full-time sworn staff in I am proposing the addition of three patrol officers and one lieutenant. The new employees would allow us to

9 improve coverage and visibility on patrol while also vastly increasing administrative oversight. A salary adjustment for the Chief would be required. Other officer positions would be needed in 2017 and A clerk position would be added in the 2020 budget cycle or sooner. There does not exist enough data at this time to accurately define the job duties or plan the exact year it will become a critical need; however, it is clear this position will need to be added within the next four years. Afterwards, one officer would be added in 2021, 2024 and 2026 to keep our ratio at 2.4 per 1,000 population. One of those last three new positions would be given a detective assignment to address our growing investigatory needs. The overall cost of the new positions is high, but if the City of Woodland wishes to maintain its own police department, it is absolutely critical that we begin to hire new officers immediately. The Department s patrol communication equipment: Mobile Data Computers (MDCs), portable radios and mobile radios are all nearing their useful lives. Due to the high cost of the MDCs and portable radios, a rotation system would be prudent to more efficiently plan for budgeting. In-car cameras were originally budgeted for purchase in 2016; however, because the Washington State Legislature failed to make reasonable changes to the public disclosure statutes our liability in that regard would be too great if we were to deploy cameras. At some point in the near future it is likely that such equipment will be mandated by the federal government, so this should remain a budgeted and planned-for item. In the event cameras become a federal mandate in the absence of a change to our state s public disclosure laws, consideration will have to be given to hiring a clerk whose main job duties involve public information requests. The Department s Tasers are a critical less-lethal force option. In addition, our current equipment is over ten years old and past its normal life cycle. I have been involved in testing other neuromuscular incapacitation devices and am convinced Taser is our best option. They are generally more expensive, but their customer and product support, including experts who will testify in court at our request, is well worth the extra expense. As a Department we generally do engage in vehicle pursuits for property crimes or minor traffic offenses. In those instances our policy allows for pursuit, the risks and liability to the City are great. Stop Stick is a product that allows for relatively safe termination of pursuits. The cost is relatively high, but one single deployment will justify the entire expense.

10 Back Lot Outlets is an item that should have been more adequately addressed during the Police building s initial construction. The patrol vehicles are equipped with various electronic equipment that can continue to drain the cars main battery reserve even when those devices are not activated. Therefore, each car is also equipped with a charging cord that fits a standard 120 volt, grounded AC outlet. To date power has been supplied to the cars through an outlet affixed in one of the parking lot planters, which necessitates use of an extension cord. Unfortunately, this practice is unsafe and has led to at least one officer receiving a mild shock from the extension cords. Placement of additional outlets nearer the patrol vehicles is warranted. There are three final items listed as Want rather than Critical Need. First, during inclement weather it would be beneficial during a number of tasks to have a roof over our sally port area. This will provide an outdoor location under which our employees could work free from the elements. Second, we are in need of a privacy barrier for the sally port area. The most advantageous time to gather intelligence from suspects and arrestees is in the first few hours after arrest. This usually occurs while the subject is smoking, which can only occur in the sally port area. Having some privacy from onlookers would encourage cooperation. Third, the lighting in the back parking lot is dim and not adequate from a safety perspective. The lighting could be improved by replacing the current bulbs with LEDs. It is important to note that the attached spreadsheet in support of this memorandum is based upon the following assumptions: 1. All monetary figures are shown in 2017 dollars 2. All Annual Cost figures involving salary and pay also include estimated cost of benefits. 3. Officers are hired at Step 3: $5,625 monthly and $67,500 per year; $101,250, including benefits 4. Vehicle cost, $40,000; equip cost, $20,000 each officer 5. Training costs should be considered about $5,000 per new FTE and are not included 6. Population growth is estimated at 2.3% per year, as stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan 7. Officer needs are calculated using 2.4/1,000, which is an industry standard for small agencies. Our city has the following aggravating factors in addition to those included in the standard: high crime rate (more than 50% above state average), high arrest rate, and increased-use population as a by-product of our position on Interstate 5

11 8. Lieutenant salary is calculated using the middle sergeant step rate, Step 2, and adding 15%; $96, Chief salary is calculated using the lieutenant pay and adding 15%; currently $92,000, needs to increase to $110, All costs for radios, mobiles and portables, are estimates 11. MDC rotation, 6-7 years; portable radio rotation 8 years; mobile radio replacement, 15 years

12 Phil Crochet Chief of Police Karla Hiler Police Clerk Donny Conner Evidence Services Clerk Dustin Palmquist Detective Brad Gillaspie Sergeant Robb Lipp Sergeant Jim Keller Patrol Reserve Unit Brent Murray Patrol Derek Kelley Patrol Terry Casey Patrol Robert Gibbs Recruit Vacant PJC:pjc

13 Critical Need Item Quantity Year Needed Annual Cost One-Time Costs 2017 Impact Personnel Lieutenant FTE $144,000 $60,000 $204,000 Chief Salary Adj $27,000 $27,000 Officer FTE $303,750 $180,000 $483,750 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Clerk $82,500 $10,000 Detective FTE $104,000 $60,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Equipment (7 Years) MDC Rotation $20, $20,000 $20, $15, $25, $25, $25,000 (9 Years) Port Radio Rot $16,000 $16, $16, $12,000 (15 Years) Mobile Radios $5,000 $5,000 Tasers $10,000 $10,000 Stop Sticks $6,000 $6,000 Back Lot Outlets 2017 $50,000 $50,000 In-Car Cameras 14 Unk $90,000 Radio System N/A Unk Unk Want Sally Port Cover $60,000 $60,000 Sally Port Privacy $1,500 $1,500 Back Lot Lighting $5,000 $5,000

14 Critical Need Item Quantity Year Needed Annual Cost One-Time Costs 2018 Impact Personnel Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 $161,250 Clerk $82,500 $10,000 Detective FTE $104,000 $60,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Equipment MDC Rotation $15,000 $15, $25, $25, $25,000 Port Radio Rot $16,000 $16, $12,000 In-Car Cameras 14 Unk $90,000

15 Critical Need Item Quantity Year Needed Annual Cost One-Time Costs 2019 Impact Personnel Clerk $82,500 $10,000 Detective FTE $104,000 $60,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Equipment $25, $25, $25,000 Port Radio Rot $12,000 $12,000 In-Car Cameras 14 Unk $90,000

16 Critical Need Item Quantity Year Needed Annual Cost One-Time Costs 2020 Impact Personnel Clerk $82,500 $10,000 $92,500 Detective FTE $104,000 $60,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Equipment MDC Rotation $25, $25, $25,000 In-Car Cameras 14 Unk $90,000

17 Critical Need Item Quantity Year Needed Annual Cost One-Time Costs 2021 Impact Personnel Detective FTE $104,000 $60,000 $164,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Equipment MDC Rotation $25, $25, $25,000 In-Car Cameras 14 Unk $90,000

18 Critical Need Item Quantity Year Needed Annual Cost One-Time Costs 2023 Impact Personnel Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Equipment MDC Rotation $25,000 $25, $25, $25,000 In-Car Cameras 14 Unk $90,000

19 Critical Need Item Quantity Year Needed Annual Cost One-Time Costs 2024 Impact Personnel Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 $161,250 Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Equipment MDC Rotation $25,000 $25, $25,000 In-Car Cameras 14 Unk $90,000

20 Critical Need Item Quantity Year Needed Annual Cost One-Time Costs 2025 Impact Personnel Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 Equipment MDC Rotation $25,000 $25,000 In-Car Cameras 14 Unk $90,000

21 Critical Need Item Quantity Year Needed Annual Cost One-Time Costs 2026 Impact Personnel Officer FTE $101,250 $60,000 $161,250 In-Car Cameras 14 Unk $90,000

22 CITY OF WOODLAND, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WOODLAND, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE STATE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016, OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO LEVY REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITATIONS OF RCW 84.55; SETTING FORTH THE TEXT OF THE BALLOT PROPOSITION; DIRECTING THE APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIOALS TO TAKE THOSE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER RELATED MATTERS RECITALS The City Council (the Council ) of the City of Woodland, Washington (the City ), makes the following findings: WHEREAS, RCW (1) provides for a regular real property tax levy in an amount exceeding the limitations specified in Chapter RCW provided the increased levy is authorized by and through a proposition approved by a majority of the voters at general election held within the taxing district, hereinafter a levy lid lift. WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is essential and necessary for the public health, safety and welfare that the City raise additional funds to support law enforcement, specifically to fund hiring and equipping two additional police officers and a police lieutenant position over a multiple year period. AND, WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the current revenues available to the City are insufficient to provide for this purpose, and has therefore determined that it is in the interests of the City and its residents to submit a levy lid lift proposition to the voters for their approval or rejection and that, if approved, the final levy will be used to calculate future levy limits. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOODLAND, WASHINGTON, as follows: Section 1. Purpose and Calling of Election. The City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to submit to the qualified voters of the City, at a special election to be held in conjunction with the State general election on November 8, 2016, a proposition authorizing the City to increase its regular property tax levy for collection in 2017 by an amount greater than otherwise permitted under Chapter RCW for the exclusive purpose of funding law enforcement services. If this proposition is approved, the City Council will be authorized to adopt, in accordance with its regular budget process, an increase in regular property taxes. Section 2. Description of Ballot Measure. To fulfill the exclusive purpose identified in this ordinance, the City Council seeks voter approval under RCW (1) for a levy lid lift. The proposed increase is estimated to result in an incremental increase in the regular property tax rate of $ of assessed value, for a total

23 estimated levy rate of $3.10 per $1,000 of assessed value for collection in The dollar amount of the levy in 2017 shall be used for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies as provided under Chapter RCW. Section 3. Ballot Proposition. The Auditor of Cowlitz County, Washington (the Auditor ), is hereby requested to place on the November 8, 2016 general ballot, in the manner provided by law, a proposition in substantially the following form, subject to confirmation and editing by the Woodland City Attorney pursuant to RCW 29A , so long as the Proposition as edited is consistent with the Council s intent: City of Woodland, Washington Proposition 1 Levy Lid Lift for Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment The Woodland City Council adopted Ordinance 1365 to fund law enforcement. If approved, this proposition will fund the hiring of two additional officers and fund a lieutenant position. This proposition authorizes a 2017 regular property tax rate increase of $0.9825/$1,000, for a total estimated levy rate of $3.10/$1,000 assessed value. The 2017 levy amount shall be used to calculate future levy limits. Should this proposition be: Approved? [ ] Rejected? [ ] Section 4. Notices Relating to Ballot Proposition. For purposes of receiving from the Auditor notice of the exact language of the ballot proposition required by RCW 29A , the City Council hereby designates: (a) Peter Boyce, City Administrator, (360) , boycep@ci.woodland.wa.us; (b) Mari Ripp, City Clerk/Treasurer, (360) , rippm@ci.woodland.wa.us; and (c) William Eling, City Attorney, (360) , elinglaw@aol.com, as the individuals to whom such notice should be provided. Section 5. Authorization to Deliver Ordinance and Perform Other Necessary Duties. The Clerk (or his/her designee) is authorized and directed, no later than August 2, 2016, to certify a copy of this Ordinance and transmit said certified copy to the Cowlitz County Auditor and to perform such other duties as are necessary or required by law to the end that the proposition described in this ordinance should appear on the November 8, 2016 ballot. Section 6. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance shall be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, then such provision shall be null and void and shall be separable from the remaining

24 provisions and shall in no way affect the validity of the other provisions, or of the levy or collection of the taxes authorized herein. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication, as required by law. ADOPTED this day of June, CITY OF WOODLAND, WASHINGTON Approved: Attest: Will Finn, Mayor Mari E. Ripp, Clerk-Treasurer Approved as to form only: William J. Eling, City Attorney