HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 6/4/2002 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at
the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
MINUTES
CITY OF GLENDALE
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
June 4, 2002
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and
Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet,
and Manuel D. Martinez
ABSENT: Councilmember H. Philip Lieberman
ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager;
Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk
1. STRATEGIES FOR FUTURE FINANCIAL STABILITY
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Chris Zapata, Deputy City Manager; and
Mr. Charlie McClendon, Management and Budget Director.
The challenges of this year's budget process clearly illustrate that external factors
beyond our control can seriously impact the City's ability to fund necessary operations
and services.
As a component of the new business plan, staff has identified some potential strategies
for consideration to address the revenue uncertainties the City continues to face.
Staff proposed to further examine and develop strategies relating to the following:
• Global Economic Business Analysis
• Cost of Service Analysis
• Exploration of Other Potential Revenue Sources
• In-Depth Expenditure Analysis
• Debt Analysis and Options
The Mayor and City Council conducted five workshops during April of 2002 to discuss
the Fiscal Year 2002-03 budget.
The agenda for this City Council workshop was posted and all legal requirements for
notification were met.
1
The eventual implementation of the business plan strategy recommendations will
strengthen the City of Glendale's long-term financial stability.
The recommendation was to review the proposed business plan strategies for future
financial stability and provide staff with direction.
Mr. Zapata stated they foresee a series of discussions to obtain Council's direction and
input in the area of financial stability.
Mr. McClendon stated that the Operating budget totaled $224 million in Fiscal Year
2002 and totals $227 million for the upcoming fiscal year. He pointed out that the
Operating budget includes $4.4 million of new spending related to the transportation
program which was approved by the voters and $1.2 million for the required plan review
and building inspections related to the arena project. He stated that, excluding those
two items, the budget is actually $2.6 million less than the Fiscal Year 2002 budget. He
commended the departments for finding ways to continue to provide service without
increasing their budgets. Mr. McClendon reported that the Capital budget is $222
million greater than the budget for Fiscal Year 2002, with $175 million related to the
arena project and $14 million related to the transportation package. He noted that there
were also carryover projects totaling $90 million. He said, minus those items, the
Capital budget is actually less than the budget for the current fiscal year. Mr.
McClendon stated that there was a $6.9 million increase in the Debt Service budget, $4
million of which will allow the City to call some Improvement District Bonds. He said the
remaining $4.8 million represents debt service on the new bonds issued in 1999.
Mr. McClendon reviewed the Global Economic Business Analysis. He explained that it
consists of two main components. He said they first examined the City's needs,
incorporating public safety staffing needs and then ensuring that the costs of operating
the proposed capital facilities were accurately reflected. He stated they then assessed
the economic environment. He noted that they had already started to see lower income
tax collections in the current fiscal year than predicted. He said the State Legislature
adopted a two-year reduction in the State formulas, from 15% to 14.8%. He stated that
the analysis will define: (1) potential gaps between the identified needs and the
economic environment, (2) whether expenses will exceed revenues, (3) available
options, and (4) whether current expenditures are consistent with the new business
model. He said options will be presented to the Council for their consideration. Mr.
McClendon stated that they will do a comprehensive evaluation of the services being
offered, the best way to provide the services, and the total economic cost of providing
the services. He said they will also identify all revenue sources and establish a means
for measuring productivity and performance. He said the business model will provide
Council with the opportunity to make informed decisions, allow for improved planning,
provide supportable fee and rate recommendations, and result in improved efficiency.
Mr. McClendon explained that they will begin the process with an expenditure and value
outcome analysis, followed by a cost of service analysis and an exploration of revenue
sources. He said the Council will then provide policy direction to staff. He stated that
2
the in-depth expenditure analysis will require a comprehensive base budget analysis for
all departments. He said, logistically, it cannot be done for all departments at the same
time; therefore they are proposing a phased approach, beginning with Recreation and
Solid Waste. He explained that they will identify outdated appropriations and reallocate
where needs exist. He stated that they will also examine trends in attendance and
participation, compare and benchmark with other cities, and see if a nationally
recognized leader exists which the City could emulate. He said the analysis will
continue in future years, beginning with the highest cost centers.
Mr. Lynch discussed debt structure strategies. He noted that, for years, they have
utilized a conservative financial approach. He said they started by re-examining the
rules and covenants by which the City's debt is governed to determine ways they can
reduce or accelerate debt repayment. He said, while the debt total has increased for
the current year, they were able to reduce the total debt by $4 million in the upcoming
year by looking at the laws governing special assessment payments. He stated that
they have also examined opportunities to continue the conservative debt management
practice of accelerating bond repayment, maintaining the City's ability to fund new
projects at existing tax revenue levels. He explained that they also looked at existing
and outstanding debt, focusing on lease opportunities. He noted that they were able to
reduce the last proposed lease by $500,000. He said they spent a lot of time on the
debt management plan to find ways that the City can lower its total debt obligation.
Mr. McClendon reviewed the cost of service analysis. He stated that the Parks and
Recreation Fee and Policy study will be the first to come before the Council. He
reported that the program analysis and costing of individual service areas was
completed in February to April of 2002 and presented to the Park's Commission on May
13, 2002. He said, concurrently, they are working on the Solid Waste Management
study, with the program analysis underway and the cost of service assessment and
strategy formulation expected to occur July to September of 2002. He said the City
Code requires that every two years the City ensure that the Water and Sewer cost
recovery validation model is accurate. He noted that it will be done this year. He said
future studies include miscellaneous fee schedules and code enforcement needs. Mr.
McClendon stated that the next component would be the exploration of other potential
revenue sources, examining how other cities fund services. He said they will also
evaluate recreational fees and policies and the primary property tax policy. He stated
that they will evaluate the potential for rental property fee restructuring, surcharges for
code enforcement, telecom fees, and false alarm fees.
Mr. McClendon summarized by stating that they had attempted to develop a
comprehensive model that looks at both revenue and expenditures. He said, once the
information is available, the Council will find that the City does a good job of providing
services and will be able to provide direction in areas where a better job could be done.
Mayor Scruggs asked if they would be prepared for the next budget process that begins
in four months. Mr. McClendon pointed out that the budget process starts immediately.
He explained that financial forecasting will be fed into the model. He stated that they
3
would prepare preliminary information to give Council an idea of the overall situation.
He expressed his opinion that the model will be very helpful, given the complexity of the
upcoming year's budget.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the City of Glendale's telecom fees are higher than
those assessed by other cities. Mr. McClendon stated that the City of Glendale is lower
than many cities. He noted, however, that a study is currently underway. He explained
that telecom fees are charges that telephone providers pay to operate in a given
jurisdiction. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what they would be evaluating with regard to
recreation fees and policies. Mr. McClendon said there are literally hundreds of
individual services provided by the Recreation Department, many of which charge a
user participation fee. He stated that the purpose of the study was to determine which
services the City should recover its costs on and which have a universal value. Vice
Mayor Eggleston asked about the primary property tax. Mr. McClendon stated the tax
has remained at levels where a hearing is not required under the Truth in Taxation Law.
He explained that the Truth in Taxation Law states a hearing is required if the property
tax levy is greater because the value of existing properties in the community, on the
aggregate, increase. He said they have been reducing the rate so that, on the
aggregate, individual property owners are not paying any more because their home or
business has greater value. He pointed out that the only time the City gets more money
from the property tax is when new homes and businesses are built.
Mayor Scruggs asked what would happen under the Truth in Taxation Law if the move
by the business community to shift the property tax burden to residential properties was
successful and residential properties were taxed at 20%. Mr. McClendon agreed that it
would present a complex situation. He explained that it would effectively double the
assessed valuation of residential properties. He said, however, if residential rates were
lowered and business assessment ratios stayed the same, the City would, in effect, be
cutting business taxes in half, thereby dramatically decreasing the City's revenue. He
said such a reduction would have a significant impact on the capital side.
Councilmember Clark stated that she was very pleased with the proposed business
model because it gives the Council an opportunity to look at departments in an in-depth
manner and provides the Council with options when making policy decisions.
Councilmember Martinez said he also liked the proposed model. He asked if the
Council would receive information earlier in the budget process. Mr. McClendon stated
that this was their intent. Councilmember Martinez stated his belief that a false alarm
penalty should be considered. He pointed out the fact that certain locations have a
large number of false alarms. Mr. McClendon emphasized that their goal would be to
reduce the number of false alarms, not to increase City revenue.
Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. McClendon if he would be making recommendations
concerning fees at next month's Council meeting. Mr. McClendon said they intended to
bring forward information about available options, what other jurisdictions charge, and
4
how much the fees would generate. He said the Council would then decide if they were
interested in pursuing any of the options. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. McClendon
if he would be presenting information on fees that other cities charge which could be a
source of additional revenue for the City of Glendale. Mr. McClendon said it was their
plan to do that over time, with the telecommunications area being first.
Mayor Scruggs suggested that they include information on the minimum decrease in
revenue expected as a result of the special census. Mr. McClendon stated that it would
be effective in Fiscal Year 2007. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Cost of Service Analysis
would also look at internal services, including benefits, replacement funds, and so forth.
Mr. McClendon responded in the affirmative. Mayor Scruggs said invasion of privacy
was one of the major issues with charging false alarm fees, since residents who have
alarms would be required to register with the City. She asked what happens when the
police respond to a false alarm. Mr. McClendon stated that, typically, jurisdictions allow
a certain number of false alarms each year. Mayor Scruggs noted that the City already
has a fee structure in place. She asked Mr. McClendon if he ever saw any revenue
from those fees. Mr. McClendon said the revenue from those fees is not itemized
anywhere. He offered to obtain that information for Mayor Scruggs. Mayor Scruggs
asked Mr. Lynch if their review of special improvement district debt will look at whether
some districts earn more income and could be paid off earlier. Mr. Lynch replied that
this was correct. He explained that they will be reviewing stipulations in the bond
covenants that currently require the City to wait until a certain year to retire the bonds.
He said they will also determine if some costs could be shifted to lower the City's
obligations.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the City could save money even if an early payoff
penalty is assessed. Mr. Lynch stated that the City could save money depending on
the penalty schedule.
2. THREE AND FIVE-YEAR FORECASTS ON THE NUMBERS OF OFFICERS
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NEEDS
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. David Dobrotka, Police Chief; and Mr.
Randy Henderlite, Police Commander.
Staff was directed by the Mayor and City Council at the April 16, 2002 Budget
Workshop to perform a study on the number of officers needed by the Police
Department within next three to five years.
Historical statistical information shows that, as the population has increased, the Police
Department's response time for calls has also increased.
The Police Department's goal is to increase the officers' unassigned time to 30%, as
recommended by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) and to decrease the response time for calls for service.
5
Police Department staff addressed questions from the Mayor and Council which were
derived from the two previous workshop sessions.
These issues were discussed at the April 16 and April 30, 2002 Budget Workshops.
The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction.
Mr. Dobrotka stated that he has always tried to balance the needs of the Police
Department with those of other departments because other departments provide very
valuable services to both citizens and the Police Department. He expressed his opinion
that it would be wrong to encourage fear in the City's residents to accomplish gains in
the Police Department. He said today's presentation does not take the needs of other
departments into consideration. Mr. Dobrotka explained that they did a five-year
historic analysis, identifying trends in population, calls for service, response times, and
duty time. He stated that the historic trends were then used to make the predictions
and projections being presented.
Mr. Henderlite reported that population and calls for service increased by 17% and
16%, respectively, during the past five years. He noted that personnel had increased
over 24%.
Mr. Dobrotka said there was 6% increase in calls for service from 2000 to 2001. He
noted that, due to hard work by both the Police Department and the citizens, there was
a 1% reduction in Part 1 crimes.
Councilmember Clark said other presentations she had heard indicated that auto theft
had increased 26% to 30%. She asked if a break down of Part 1 crime rates would be
provided. Mr. Dobrotka agreed that auto theft increased dramatically. He stated that it
was the one category they had not been able to successfully reduce. He said auto theft
was offset by theft and burglaries, which declined by 5% and 10%, respectively.
Mayor Scruggs asked if other police departments, either locally or nationally, determine
their need for police personnel based on something other than the city's population.
She asked if the types of facilities located in a city are also considered when
determining police needs. Mr. Dobrotka replied in the affirmative. He stated that they
use a variety of data to develop their projections. Mr. Henderlite said they do not know
how the crime rate at Arrowhead Mall will compare with that at the Ellman development
because they do not know what type of retail will be developed there. He stated,
however, that they had factored the land size ratio into their forecast in an effort to
anticipate the needs once the development is completed.
Councilmember Clark asked if other residential and commercial developments planned
for the future were taken into consideration. Mr. Henderlite stated that they had
factored those developments in by population. He noted that a new model will be run
every year. Mr. Dobrotka stated that many dynamics are taken into account in the
mathematical model.
Mr. Dobrotka referred to a slide on the historical trends from 1997 through 2001. He
noted a 24.9% total increase in personnel, with a 26% increase in sworn officers, and
just over 22% in non-sworn personnel during that five-year period. He stated that
6
Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls are violent or in-progress crimes and account for
approximately 20% of the total calls for service. He said Priority 3 and 4 calls are non-
emergency calls and account for 60% of all calls for service. He stated that the
remaining 20% are lower priority 5, 6, and 7 calls. He explained that Priority 5 calls are
typically handled by call-back officers stationed in the Police Department; Priority 6 calls
are those initiated by police officers in the street; and Priority 7 calls are usually handled
by the 911 center. He pointed out that almost 14,000 of the 90,000 Priority 3 and 4
calls were alarm calls, less than 1% of which were valid.
Councilmember Clark said she was pleased that other factors, other than population,
were taken into consideration when forecasting needs. She pointed out the fact that
there is not necessarily a direct correlation between the population increase and the
number of calls for service. Mr. Henderlite stated that the nature and character of calls
have changed over the past five years as well.
Councilmember Martinez asked how many of the total number of calls for service were
from the Arrowhead Mall area. Mr. Henclerlite explained that 1.9% of the calls for
service were generated between 75thto 83ru Avenues, Bell Road to Grovers Avenue.
In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Henderlite confirmed that the 1 .9%
includes automobile accident related calls for service. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the
fact that Glendale is a pass-through city and many automobile accident calls for service
just happen to occur within the City's limits. Mr. Henderlite agreed with Mayor Scruggs.
He stated that they had seen a correlation between the increased number of calls and
the opening of the Loop 101.
Councilmember Martinez stressed the need for people to take appropriate precautions
to discourage crime in their neighborhoods. Mr. Dobrotka said a study conducted by
Mr. John Krystek, Police Commander, determined that 25% of property crimes in their
area were preventable. He stated, for instance, that victims neglected to close their
garages or lock their doors.
Mr. Henderlite reviewed the response time statistics. He stated that Priority 1 and 2
response times increased 27% from 1997 to 2001. He said the average response time
in 1997 was just over five minutes, whereas the average response time was 6.5
minutes in 2001. He stated that their goal was to respond within five minutes, thereby
increasing their chance to lessen the severity of the crime and to apprehend those
involved.
Councilmember Clark asked for a larger copy of the slides. She said Priority 1 and 2
calls involve life threatening situations and a 90 second difference in the response time
can literally be the difference between life and death. Mr. Henderlite agreed with
Councilmember Clark.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the average response time was city-wide. Mr. Henderlite,
responded that it was city-wide. Mayor Scruggs stated that breaking the response
times down by sector could show that some sectors have a much longer response time,
while others have a much shorter one. Mr. Henderlite said the number of calls for
service in each area drives their deployment. Mr. Dobrotka stated that response times
throughout the City range from six minutes in smaller beat areas to 7.5 minutes in larger
beat areas. He explained that the response times are very close because they make
an effort to equalize the workload for their officers. Mr. Henderlite stated that they voice
dispatch all Priority 1 and 2 calls.
7
Mr. Henderlite stated that their response times for Priority 3 and 4 calls have increased
56.46%. He explained that they had a 25 minute 38 second response time in 1997 and
a 40 minute 6 second response time in 2001. He noted that Priority 3 and 4 calls are
placed in the queue and officers self-dispatch to those calls.
Councilmember Clark said she did not get calls from people complaining about non-
priority response times during her last term, but she has received numerous calls from
constituents during this past year. Mr. Henderlite agreed that there is a very long
response time on Priority 3 and 4 calls on certain nights of the week. Mr. Dobrotka
said, in some ways, they are more concerned about the increase in response times for
Priority 3 and 4 calls than Priority 1 and 2 calls. He explained that Priority 3 and 4 calls
affect how safe citizens perceive their city to be.
Mr. Henderlite discussed duty times. He explained that work time is reactive and
unassigned time is proactive. He stressed the Department's commitment to patrolling
beats and interacting with the community to keep situations from escalating into Priority
1 and 2 calls. He said officers currently have 9.43% of their time as unassigned time,
down from 19% in 1998. He said their goal is to have 30% to 33% unassigned time to
allow officers an opportunity to focus on quality of life issues. Mr. Dobrotka pointed out
that the duty time chart only depicts district officers and does not include community
action teams, detectives, neighborhood response units, or bicycle units. He said
working proactively with community action teams, neighborhood response units, and
bicycle units has allowed the Police Department to hold the line in terms of Part 1
crimes.
Mayor Scruggs expressed concern that the chart portrays an inaccurate picture by not
including the specialized units. She asked why they had set the goal at 30% when
unassigned time activities have been given to the specialized units. Mr. Dobrotka
agreed that specialized units are able to dedicate time to quality of life issues that duty
officers cannot necessarily devote. He said both types of officers are needed. Mayor
Scruggs said the slide gives the impression that the Police Department is not able to
devote time to problem solving when, in reality, the department has hired people who
devote 100% of their attention to formerly unassigned time duties.
Councilmember Clark stated that she thought 30% unassigned time was important.
She said, although she really valued the work of the community action teams,
neighborhood response units, and detectives, in most instances, they are reacting to
situations that have already been identified. She stated that beat officers who have
unassigned time have the luxury of patrolling areas to prevent crimes.
Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion that community action team time
should be accounted for in the unassigned time figures. Mr. Dobrotka stated that it is
quite common for a community action team to identify a problem and ask district
officers to patrol or watch certain areas. He said, while 30% unassigned time may not
be the appropriate goal, 10% is too low because it precludes them from being available
to assist the specialized units.
Mayor Scruggs asked for a clearer picture of how the Police Department responds to
issues typically handled during unassigned time. Mr. Dobrotka briefly explained the
forecasting methodology used.
8
Mayor Scruggs asked if public safety is included in analyzing and projecting increased
staffing needs when a new public facility is brought online. Mr. Dobrotka said, while
they have been included in discussions concerning annexation and certain events in
terms of traffic control, they are not necessarily involved in discussions about other
types of development. Mr. Henderlite stated that they have been involved in the design
of certain buildings within the City, but not typically in terms of personnel projections.
Mayor Scruggs suggested that the management teams for the North Center Aquatics
Facility and Western Area Regional Park include police and fire staffing needs in their
planning efforts.
Councilmember Frate asked how much of an officer's time is spent completing reports
and if they are given any tools to make the process more efficient. Mr. Henderlite
stated that officers do not capture report writing time separately. He said it is usually
done by log. He stated that a new interface will soon allow officers to capture data in
the field, using mobile data computers. Councilmember Frate asked about court time.
Mr. Henderlite said they were working closely with the Court to schedule officers to
appear in court during their on-duty time, thereby reducing overtime.
Councilmember Clark stated that they could not avoid overtime completely. She
pointed out the fact that swing-shift and graveyard-shift officers have to go to court
during their off hours. Mr. Henderlite agreed.
Mr. Dobrotka reviewed the personnel projections. He stated that 15 officers per year
are needed to maintain the current performance standard and response times. He said
they would need an average of 19 officers per year to achieve their 30% goal and
decrease the average response times on Priority 1 and 2 calls to 5 minutes by 2007.
Councilmember Clark asked how many officers would be needed to increase
unassigned time to 20%. She expressed her opinion that this would be a realistic goal.
Mr. Dobrotka stated that they would need an average of 17 officers per year.
Mr. Dobrotka said an average of 4.5 civilian personnel would be needed per year to
maintain the current performance standard, while 7 per year would be needed to
accommodate the increase in sworn personnel to achieve the 30% goal. He said six
civilian personnel would be needed to achieve a 20% goal.
Mayor Scruggs asked if they could simply split the difference to determine the number
of personnel needed to achieve a 20% goal. Mr. Dobrotka offered to run the numbers
through the model.
Mr. Dobrotka reviewed the costs associated with one sworn and one civilian employee.
He stated that they anticipated the need for a new City Judge and two City Prosecutors
to handle the increased workload. He noted, however, that they were unable to
determine the cost for any related court support staff.
Mayor Scruggs asked why the additional staffing in the Prosecutor's Office and the
Court would not be needed for five years. Mr. Flaaen explained that, at a minimum,
one more judge and two prosecutors would be needed by 2007. He said they
anticipate the needs to gradually occur sometime before 2007.
Ms. Brenda Way, Court Administrator, stated that the Court actually needs an additional
judge at this time. She said the Court will also need two court clerks and one cashier
per judge.
9
In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Ms. Way explained that the staff which the
Council had already authorized the court to hire would cover the Civil Traffic Hearing
Officer position. She said they would eventually request an additional judge and
associated staff.
Councilmember Clark said she thought the Civil Traffic Hearing Officer position was
intended to free up the judges' time and allow them to be more productive. Ms. Way
said they are currently using a full-time pro-tern judge to cover the Civil Traffic
courtroom in lieu of a regular city judge.
Councilmember Frate asked if the Court would eventually run out of space. Ms. Way
said they were currently remodeling the Court facility, adding a fifth court room, and
space for staff.
Councilmember Clark pointed out the fact that the number of arrests on the big deal
sheets never varies. She asked Mr. Dobrotka why the number of arrests have not
increased when the City has hired additional officers. Mr. Dobrotka explained that the
big deal sheet only reflects people booked in the City's facility. Councilmember Clark
asked how many arrests were made on an average day. Mr. Henderlite stated that 20
to 30 people are cited and released in the field, with a similar amount booked.
Councilmember Clark asked if the cite numbers were used to determine the additional
Court personnel needed. Mr. Flaaen said, based on historical trends, they determined
the number of prosecutors needed per number of officers hired. He said they then
gave their opinion as to the number of court personnel that would be needed.
Mr. Dobrotka stated that the data in their report is dynamic and, the further out the
projection, the more unreliable it becomes. He said, for that reason, the report needs to
be updated every year. With regard to identifying gaps in resources, he expressed his
opinion that the City of Glendale's revenue is not sufficient to achieve their 30% goal.
He questioned whether there was even adequate revenue to achieve a 20% goal, given
the number of other things that need to be done throughout the City. He said there are
a number of options to close the gap, the first of which would be to simply hire more
officers. He said the second option would be to change the way business is done. He
noted, for instance, that every false alarm requires approximately one-half hour of an
officer's time. He reported that Salt Lake City passed an ordinance which requires
alarm companies to respond prior to calling the police. Mayor Scruggs said such an
ordinance would only be effective if alarm companies had enough qualified personnel
who were capable of responding. Mr. Dobrotka stated that they would be reviewing
many options when they return to the Council in July.
Mayor Scruggs asked if false alarm fees were ever charged according to the current fee
structure. Mr. Harold Brady, Assistant City Attorney - Police Lieutenant, said the City
first adopted a false alarm ordinance in 1981 and updated it in the late 1980's. He
noted, however, that the City has not had the manpower necessary to enforce the
ordinance. Mayor Scruggs clarified that, of the 15,000 false alarm calls each year, only
a small number fall within the repeat offender category. Mr. Brady stated that any
enforcement mechanism would have to provide for due process. He said there are
numerous reasons an alarm may go off that are beyond the homeowner or business
owner's control. He emphasized the fact that it should not be considered a revenue-
producing mechanism. Mayor Scruggs said they generally encourage homeowners to
have a security system. Mr. Brady agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He stated that all they
want is reasonable monitoring by homeowners and business owners. Mayor Scruggs
asked Mr. Brady to return to the Council with: (1) the percentage of false alarms that
10
would likely result in a fine; (2) what staff resources would be needed to collect the
fines; and (3) what the City would retrieve in terms of officer time.
Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that they would have to balance the cost of collecting the
fee with the revenue it would bring to the City. Mr. Brady agreed with Vice Mayor
Eggleston. He said they could incur substantial cost in trying to collect the fines
imposed. He said, while businesses have been some of the more substantial violators,
they are also more likely than residents to pay the fines.
Mr. Dobrotka stated that a third option for closing the gap between revenue and need is
for the Police Department to examine how officers are currently deployed. He said they
may have to stop doing certain things in order to reassign the officers to patrol.
Mr. McClendon asked the Council if they are going in the right direction He said they
would be incorporating the information gathered by the Police Department to develop
long-range forecasting scenarios.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if they would suggest areas that could be reduced or
eliminated if the Police Department budget was increased. Mr. McClendon said they
would bring forward various options to cover the cost increase, including a reduction or
elimination of certain programs or services, ways to increase revenues to cover the
increased cost, and how things could be done differently to offset the increase.
Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion that they were taking the right approach. She
stated that they would review the options presented to determine if the current level of
service should be increased and, if so, how best to cover the costs involved.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
11