Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Sfty Cmsn - 04/08/09 CITY OF PALM DESERT �.�►--,�---•,� � ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING . APPROVED MINUTES Wednesday, April 8, 2009 — 3:00 p.m. Administrative Conference Room I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Nethery convened the meeting at 3:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner James Butzbach Vice Chairman James Larsh Commissioner Gloria Kirkwood Commissioner Rick Lebel Chairman Martin Nethery Also Present: Councilmember Cindy Finerty Councilman Jim Ferguson John Wohlmuth, City Manager Sheila R. Gilligan, ACM/Community Services Chief Deputy Steve ThetFord, Riverside County h ri 's D p rt nt Captain Dan Wilham, Palm Desert Police Depa�rr�n � Lt. Andrew Shouse, Palm Desert Police Departe�c�.it � Chief Steve Brooker, Riverside County Fire De�rl,�n nt�� � � Chief John Rios, Riverside County Fire Departm�n� � ` � � ; i"��; Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programsz y ; � y i i� � Steve Aryan, Assis tan t to t he Ci ty Manager C � � Pat Scully, Senior Management Analyst V � � Ryan Stendell, Senior Management Analyst Q , = Mary P. Gates, Recording Secretary � '�- � , � � �� � � � = � zc o UCr �� � ..r �? �, � � � ,�, � � f � a � F. G:. � � ., .'�.. `L.^ C.'' Gz7 'i QC: ` e' ZQQ > O APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. PRESENTATIONS A. PowerPoint Presentation Regarding Proposed Riverside County Detention Center Chief Deputy Steve Thetford and Director of Facilities Rob Fields gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the proposed new Riverside County Detention Center. Chief Deputy Thetford noted they were requesting letters in support of this facility and the proposed site adjacent to Interstate 10 east of Cabazon. Following discussion and action on both the Police and Fire budgets, Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, recommend that the City Council send a letter to the Sheriff or to the County Board of Supervisors supporting the building of the proposed Riverside County Detention Center in the Whitewater/San Gorgonio area. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh and Commissioner Lebel ABSENT. V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of the Public Safety Commission Meeting of March 11, 2009 Rec: By Minute Motion, continue to the meeting of May 13, 2009. Upon motion by Commissioner Kirkwood, second by Commissioner Butzbach, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by a 3-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh and Commissioner Lebel ABSENT. VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None 2 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 VII. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Nethery suggested that in the future, regular/routine monthly Police and Fire reports be placed on the Consent Calendar for consideration by one roll call vote. Items could be pulled for separate discussion as needed. Mrs. Gilligan noted that this was also discussed at last week's TAC meeting. She said if the Commission so wished, it could act on New Business Items A through F on this Agenda with one motion. With Commission concurrence, staff was directed to place regular/routine Police and Fire reports on the Consent Calendar to be enacted by one roll call vote and pulled for separate discussion as needed. A. Palm Desert Fire Services Monthly Report for February 2009 Commissioner Kirkwood moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Palm Desert Fire Services monthly report for February 2009. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lebel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. B. Palm Desert Special Enforcement Teams Monthly Statistics for March 2009 Commissioner Kirkwood moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Palm Desert Special Enforcement Teams monthly statistics for March 2009. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lebel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. C. Traffic Team Report for March 2009 -- Includes Traffic Collision Statistics for February 2009 and Commercial Vehicte Enforcement Statistics for March 2009 Commissioner Butzbach noted that in the last several months, he had seen a high visibility of traffic officers around the community. He said he felt the reduction in injury accidents was directly linked to the increased level of traffic enforcement, and he felt the Police Department should be commended. Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Traffic Team report for March 2009. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. 3 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 D. Business District Team Report— March 2009 Commissioner Kirkwood moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Business District Team report for March 2009. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lebel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. E. Canine Report— March 2009 Commissioner Kirkwood moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Canine report for March 2009. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lebel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. F. Coachella Valley Violent Crime Gang Task Force Report for March 2009 Commissioner Kirkwood moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the Coachella Valley Violent Crime Gang Task Force report for March 2009. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lebel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. G. Consideration of 2008 Annual Public Safety Commission Report Chairman Nethery said he felt these annual reports were a very valuable tool. Commissioner Kirkwood moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Direct staff to forward the 2008 Annual Public Safety Commission Report to the City Council as an informational item; 2) Receive and file the report. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Butzbach and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. H. Consideration of Fire Department 2008 Annual Report Commissioner Lebel asked that, for the 2009 Annual Report, statistics be added relative to the number of losses by dollar amount (dollars saved and lost) as well as per capita loss. Chairman Nethery said he felt this was a great report. Commissioner Lebel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Direct staff to forward the Fire Department 2008 Annual Report to the City Council as an informational item; 2) Receive and file the report. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Butzbach and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. 4 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRiL 8, 2009 I. Consideration of Police Department 2008 Annual Report Commissioner Butzbach said this was a very well-done report, and he commended Lt. Shouse and Captain Wilham for putting it together. He also thanked the Police Department for all it had done this year. Commissioner Lebel agreed this is a valuable report and provided great information for the Commission to use as it considered the Police Department budget. Chairman Nethery suggested that both the Police and Fire Annual Reports be provided to the Commission a month earlier (in March), since the budget consideration takes place in April each year. Lt. Shouse noted that the report was put together by his staff and the Sergeants responsible for specific areas as wetl as the Department's new Crime Analyst, Mike Nelson, who was a medically retired detective. Commissioner Lebel said he felt it was important for this report to be circulated through the Police Department so that everyone is on the same page. He said he felt it should be shared internally as well as externally. Upon question by Commissioner Butzbach regarding Part 1 crimes, Lt. Shouse noted that the figures in the report were provided by the FBI for the year 2007; figures for 2008 will come out in the fall. Chairman Nethery said he felt this information was valuable for the citizens of Palm Desert and should be made available to them. Mrs. Gilligan responded that staff could post a notice on the City's website advising that these reports are available to the public. Commissioner Lebel suggested that a copy also be provided to the Library for students and the public to review. Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Direct staff to forward the Police Department 2008 Annual Report to the City Council as an informational item; 2) Receive and file the report. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. 5 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 J. Consideration of Palm Desert Emergency Services 2008 Annual Report Chairman Nethery noted that he felt this was an excellent report. Commissioner Lebel commended staff for doing an outstanding job on this report, which was well-read and understood. Mrs. Gilligan added that the Subcommittee established by this Commission has moved the City forward as far as emergency preparedness. She thanked the Commission, the Subcommittee, and Mr. Stendell for their efforts. Commissioner Lebel moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Direct staff to forward the Palm Desert Emergency Services 2008 Annual Report to the City Council as an informational item; 2) Receive and file the report. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. K. Consideration of Proposed Fiscal Year 2009/10 Fire Department Budget The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Minutes: Key MN Marty Nethery, Public Safety Commission Chairman SA Steve Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager JR Chief John Rios, Riverside County Fire Department JF Councilman Jim Ferguson RL Rick Lebel, Public Safety Commissioner SB Chief Steve Brooker, Riverside County Fire Department CF Mayor Pro Tem Cindy Finerty GK Gloria Kirkwood, Public Safety Commissioner JB Jim Butzbach, Public Safety Commissioner MN Item K, Consideration of Proposed Fiscal Year 2009/10 Fire Department Budget, Packet Section M...and we have a report from the City Manager, and it also includes a report from Chief Otero. SA Chairman and Commissioners, if I could take on the budget presentation. MN Yes, I was going to find out who was going to make the presentation. 6 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 SA What I would recommend, first, if you could just turn to the White Paper before looking at the budget memorandum. The White Paper really is what drives the budget. Within Palm Desert we have three medic units, one at each station. The last one introduced was back in 1996, and that was at Station 67, which is Mesa View that serves south Palm Desert. The City has been exploring building two new fire stations, one at our north end which is actually in the university area, and that station...the purpose to have that was to alleviate the additional calls for service that new development in the area would bring at Station 71. As you know, that station is our busiest station with the highest call volume within the City, so the purpose of the north sphere station was to alleviate those calls. If you drive out to the north sphere, there's not much development out there right now, so there really is not a need to have that station at this time. The other station we were looking at was over on the eastern boundaries on Washington Street near Avenue of the States...that's a redevelopment project. And that one...if you can turn to page 95 of my report, you'll see there's a map which shows...basically showing each fire station within the City as well as our neighboring communities, and those circles represent a one and a half mile radius. That radius is what the Fire Department uses to say that they can respond to calls within a five-minute period from dispatch to arrival on scene. And the shaded areas, those are outside that radius, and especially in the eastern portion of the City, we've been experiencing a lot of call volumes for medic calls. Now, the station that is picking up those calls is Fire Station 55, that's outside our city, that's the Indian Wells fire station. In looking at the statistics, last year alone, the year-end report, about 70% of the calls from Station 55 responded to Palm Desert. The latest ones I have were in January, and that was approximately 80%, so it's increased considerably. Indian Wells has expressed their concern over this. So the need for that additional station is apparent, but there's not a real need right now for an engine company there. So what we're proposing and what Indian Wells has agreed upon is to have an additional medic unit that will be stationed at 55, at no cost. We had a meeting, a Cove staff meeting yesterday, and the City Manager there expressed...excuse me, the representatives of Indian Wells expressed their concerns that we have the medic unit housed there...there's a cost to this, of course, as always. That cost is approximately, looking at the budget numbers, a medic unit now the Fire Department says is about $741,000. What the City Manager has proposed in the White Paper is to fund this a couple ways. The first way is to look at the Fire Prevention and Protection Tax. Currently that tax is at a level of about $48 annually. Our ordinance allows the City, without a vote, to increase that to $60. The other two cities currently have it, the Cities of Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage, at the $60 rate. So if we were to raise that to the $60 levy, that would bring in approximately $410,000, so that would reduce that amount considerably. The remaining balance we looked at having a cost proposal because if we were to...when we first looked at this, one of our options was to have Station 33's medic unit go to Station 55, but that would be at a detriment to Rancho Mirage, as that medic unit also responds to their city. So their City Manager indicated his 7 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 willingness yesterday to look at a funding formula based on their proportional use each year. If you look at last year's numbers, that equals about 23% of our medic 33 going into Rancho Mirage, and from these budget numbers that's about $170,000 deduction; however, he also said that he's willing to forego that just for this fiscal year coming up, which is 09/10, because in 10/11 the City's going to be introducing their own medic unit at their station #1 which on this map is referred to as station 50. So they will no longer be willing to fund that after the fiscal year coming up. And if we also look at the page in my report, the last page, page 94, that kind of shows you the history...our population, the Fire Tax revenue, and our expenditures level over the last almost 30 years. As you can see, just in the last about eight years, our fire expenditures have gone up considerably, I think about 500%, and our fire tax revenue now is at a deficit. So with the addition of this medic unit, we're going to have an increased cost as well. So the real question is do you recommend to the City Council the additional medic unit and, if so, you need to look at the funding formula. If you could turn to that memo now, I guess, Chief Otero's memo. MN Before we do that, let me ask you a question. SA Sure MN I think you can assume this Commission has read all of this. SA Okay MN I don't understand, and in this budget environment I'm not...you know, I see the budget problem with a north sphere fire station at this time... SA And that's why we're recommending to... MN ...but I don't see the lack of need for it... SA Correct MN ...the station at...what's the number of the station at Portola and Country Club? JR 71 MN The number of calls are off the charts that that station responds to. We talked about this last time or maybe the time before. Disproportionate...in fact, that's when we said that's under consideration, and you were telling me we'll talk about this later, which is good, but I just don't see the lack of need for that. I don't buy that there's no need for that. We may not be able to afford it right now, and if 8 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 that's the consideration, thaYs fine, that's the budget constraints we're dealing with, but the only thing I saw in this white paper that I questioned, if that's the right word, is the suggestion that we don't need something in the north sphere to alleviate the pressure on this Station 71. SA The Battalion Chief could answer this. What I'm assuming is that the additional medic unit at 55...that will reduce the call volume at 71. JR Placing a fourth unit at Station 55, a Palm Desert unit at Station 55, that's going to reduce the number of calls out of 71 from having to come in to the south side of 71. Keep in mind that Station 33 (unclear) in Indian Wells when Indian Wells is (unclear) Palm Desert that pertains to the response area for 55, 71 as well, and it's also coming in, when this particular station right here is busy on a call. That will reduce the number, and that will reduce the impact. Essentially how much...we do not know. We've never gotten to the point to mathematically try to find out precisely (unclear). We're not advocating that the station in the north sphere is not warranted...not just yet. I think perhaps in the hard times that we're facing, I think it's prudent for now to maybe just put it aside for now and concentrate on what we currently have and try to maintain the levels that we have. Certainly the fourth station or fourth medic unit is going to help us accomplish that...it's going to reduce the call volume for Indian Wells where basically I think we've been hurting for a number of years now....why are we supplementing you guys? MN And I understand under the current budget constraints the north sphere station...that's what we're saying...no one is saying here, that I'm hearing, that we don't need that or we may not need that in the near future. What we're saying is that given the situation, economic situation, this will help alleviate that strain, both on Indian Wells calls and on 71. JR And the same thing applies for the Washington Street/Avenue of the States station...we're not saying eventually on the east end it may not be needed, but I think right now placement of another unit is going to really reduce both constraints. MN This is the best approach. JR Yes 9 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 SA Looking at prioritization I would say that the most direct route right now is to have a unit at 55 that serves the eastern boundary of the City. I think that with 71, they do have the heaviest call volume, but I don't think they're as taxed right now as 55 is in terms of responding within Palm Desert for calls for service. JF I would just like to offer a quick observation and, again, ordinarily I would see my role as just listening, but...this has been kind of a bifurcated discussion, actually trifurcated. The City has discussed it, the Cove Commission has discussed it, and you've discussed it. Steve has touched a little bit on what the Cove Commission said, but we've been working on this for almost five years, ever since we broke up the fire formula. And although 71 is over-taxed, 79% of their calls for service are medical related, and so the addition of the paramedic unit at Station 55 not only relieves the immediate need for us to put something in the east sphere, which we've already identified land for, by the way. And I think it solves our short-term problem. And the reason I say short-term problem is the County is projecting a three-year hit during the current economic crisis, Palm Desert is projecting a two-year hit, so whatever our cuts are, we're looking at two to three years. Now, so when you talk about levels of service and sliding and losing ground, and it's temporary, and the final thing is, the Council, you know...we've asked each department to cut by certain percentages. The Council has not yet sat down and put all the departments together and decided this one needs a bigger cut and this one needs a littler cut, and we're very aware of Mr. Butzbach's comments that police and fire, as well as streets and roads, are probably our two most primary responsibilities as a city. MN And we talked about...when we saw the report, the portion of the report that talks about the options, I forget where that is, but you know, Option 1, Option 2...one of the questions I had is what about an additional medic unit at 71 really, and that's when you suggested there are discussions ongoing. And I take it that the Department believes this is, in the short run, the best approach, and so does staff. SA And also with 71, I don't think, square footage wise, I don't think there's any dorm room there. JR At 55 there is room... MN There's room at 55 SA So thaYs another consideration. 10 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 MN Alright, thanks for that. I just wanted to make sure I was clear about what was... SA I'd like to touch upon what Councilman Ferguson mentioned. MN Yes SA One of the hardest parts when you go look and try to identify a new fire station is trying to find the best fit for available land. As he identified, we do have available land for both stations, one in our redevelopment area and also one over at the University we have approval from them to use a portion of that about three acres. So, the RFP is being introduced, you can always just shelve that and come back at a better time economically. MN Makes sense. JF Our hope is that the north sphere builds out and will help the funding for the station because that means the economy will be coming back around, and then...you know, you don't want to oversupply fire protection for sticks that are sticking up out of the ground. MN I hear you. Commissioners...comments, questions? RL On page 93 of the white paper request, there was a comment that the...l'm looking at the third paragraph down...there's a comment that the medic engine could only provide advanced life support services on the scene... SA Correct RL ...and a medic ambulance unit would still be necessary to transport the patient. SA Correct, the benefits, as I understand it, of having a medic on one of the engines is that if that medic transport unit is filled up, then that's when it provides advanced life support for... JR Many times...by having a medic engine which carries the drugs and the meds if we have a patient that needs to be transported, a medic unit would be available, hopefully, to transport; however, there's been many times where all we need is the advanced life support for that particular patient. Our medic on board would provide that acute care immediately because he does have contact with the hospital. Technically, he's got the meds in the truck that would be perhaps required to provide to the patient. And many times that would suffice where that transportation mode would not be required. If in fact that patient needs to be transported, of course, and our medic unit was tied up, that would give us some 11 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 lead time in there to make the delivery at the hospital, turn around, and come back, and go back to where the medic engine would be located. MN But this proposal doesn't...excuse me, does not propose a medic engine being added...it proposes that we need an ambulance unit instead. JR No, we need a transport unit. SA Correct RL And I'm thinking that... SA That paragraph was included because in the attached report from the Fire Department, they mentioned that as an alternative, but in actually talking with the Fire Department, that is not a real alternative. I just wanted to put that in in case that question arose. RL Yeah, I'm not sure it isn't a real alternative. I'm not sure it isn't a real alternative. If the engine companies were upgraded to advanced life support engines, the cost of that would be $196,609 as opposed to $999,871. There's a drastic reduction in cost, and if you have advanced life support provided by all of the engine companies, that frees up transport companies because the transport companies are then only required to be at the scene of the transport and not necessarily at the scene for the advanced life support services. You have Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3 support, and the Stage 3 portion of it is the transport phase. So if you're not tying up the transport companies providing advanced life support services because you've got an advanced life support engine company there, then that frees up transport time, or that frees up time for the transport companies. SA That company you're referring to is AMR? RL No, I'm speaking of for the three ambulances we have now. The three ambulances could accept additional workload, if you will, from a transport perspective yet decrease their workload from the initial response and initial treatment. SA My comments were based on discussions I've had with the Fire Department, so I'd have to refer to them on their operational...Chief SB I would argue that we need the transport capabilities because the ambulances are very, very tasked here in the City. Station 71, if you talk to those gentleman any day of the week, and they were up 48 hours straight last week without a minute of sleep, and so the calls for service for medical emergencies are 12 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 approximately 5,000 calls per year here in the City. And the majority of those are in 71 and 33's area in the eastern end of the City. It would be nice... RL And what percentage of those are transports? SB What percentage of those calls are transports? I'd have to call...l'd have to look at that specifically, but I would think that iYs a large number of them. RL I'm sure there is a large number. CF (unclear) when I did my ride along at 71, we were up all night long, and everybody was transported because they're up in age which is at Suncrest, Brighton Gardens, Carlotta, Palm Desert Greens... MN It gives you more of an option, although (unclear) it sounds as a lay person... you've got the transport option, which is included in (unclear) viewpoint is it's a lot more expensive. JR Many, many times we go through saturated periods of time, especially the high end season of the year like we're in right now. We'll be going to a lot of major events within the Cove cities, not only in the City of Palm Desert but the neighboring cities as well. We also have to fill in and help out in these endeavors. When we are tied up, and I mean tied up to the point where I've got no medic units available, I'm currently on the phone along with Captain Visyak making phone calls with the medic units trying to free up as much time. Again, with the advanced medic engine, it would give us that option to have a medic on board. Right now the key is the medic transport. MN You need the transport unit. JR Oh, there's no question. MN So the DepartmenYs recommendation and the staff recommendation is the option of the additional transport unit at 55. Indian Wells has bought that, and the funding by raising the... SA Let me note that there is also an opportunity for grant funding from the SAFER grant through the Department of Homeland Security that we can apply for, not guaranteed. But that only funds it about, I believe, $108,000 per position over a five-year spread, after which time the total cost is coming from the City. MN But that, just to cut to the chase, this is the staff's...the City Manager's and the staff's recommendation and the Department recommendation right now? 13 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 SA Yes CF Yes MN I'm confused. RL So other than reducing the budget by 4% and cutting $123,000 (unclear) CF Well, not really adding it because if you increase the Fire Tax from $48 to $60, which we can do, then that frees up $409,000. In my meeting with the City Manager, he said then we're well on our way, and that would work out just fine. It's basically a wash. By the time you split it up... SA That number, that personnel number, is a lot lower if you look at the budget here because we asked them this year...typically the Department has budgeted at top salary step... RL Right SA ...and this year we have to take a more realistic approach, which is about a 7% reduction overall. So that number goes down to about $741,000 without capital expenses. That capital expense could be anywhere from $75,000 to $250,000 depending on if we want to purchase a surplus vehicle from Indian Wells, which they do have, and if we did they'd give it to us at the low Blue Book value, or if we're keeping in theme with Council directive to look at more CNG alternatives. MN The Chair would entertain a motion. Does anyone want to make a motion, either on the recommendation of staff and the Department or any other motion that is appropriate? RL I'd move to recommend adoption of the staff recommendation with the fourth medic unit for an estimated budget of$3,408,971. GK I'll second that. MN Second. Any other comments or questions? SA Just a quick question. Are you looking at the proposed budget that Chief Otero sent over, the three million, is that it? GK Yes, that's with the medic. 14 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 MN With the medic unit...that's the staff recommendation, right? SA Okay. ThaYs after the reductions, correct. GK Right MN Okay, so actually that is the recommendation. Alright, so we have a motion to recommend to the City Council that the recommendation of City staff and the Department be recommended to the Council for approval, we have a second, all in favor, say "aye". JB Aye GK Aye RL Aye M N Aye SA One question. That number isn't based on estimates of the pass-through amount, so I don't know if you want to recommend it on the level of the $8 million because the $716,212, I did the math, I know that number is concrete... RL Okay SA ...so maybe at the $8 million level, the structural fire tax and the pass-through, we don't have those yet. RL $8,682,000 SA $8,682,080...yes, sir MN Do you want to modify your motion? RL I would modify the motion GK Second MN Okay, so there's a motion to modify... SA Less our estimated fire tax credits, whatever those may be. MN Alright. So are we clear, are we clear on what we're doing here? On page 58 of Chief Otero's recommendation, just the paper memo, where are we? 15 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 RL So the motion... MN Steve, where are we? SA That's page 58, the third column, which is labelled the 4th medic unit... MN Yes SA ...on the bottom, minus truck reimbursement cost, you're looking at a total cost of $8,682,080... RL Correct SA ...and what I would say is if you want to recommend at that level less whatever estimated fire tax credits there are... RL Right because those numbers aren't known yet. SA Correct MN And that was your original motion...it's just we don't know those numbers because they're estimates. SA Correct MN Okay, so that's a clarification of the motion. We have the motion to clarify, we have a second, all in favor say "aye" JB Aye GK Aye RL Aye MN Aye. Any other comments or questions? Alright, so that's the budget items. Let's go back to the beginning of the Agenda... RL I'd like to thank staff for all their hard work and deliberations in putting these budgets together. MN Yes, terrific, staff and...that includes the Fire Department, Police Department. RL Correct 16 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 MN We know you spent a lot of time. So we're going to go back to the beginning of the Agenda... Motions: Commissioner Lebel moved to, by Minute Motion, recommend to the City Council adoption of the staff recommendation for the Fire Department budget with the fourth medic unit for an estimated budget of $3,408,971. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. Commissioner Lebel moved to, by Minute Motion, clarify his previous motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the Fire Department Budget with the fourth medic unit, at the level of $8,682,080, less any estimated Fire Tax Credits. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. L. Consideration of Proposed Fiscal Year 2009/10 Police Department Budget The following is a verbatim transcript of this portion of the Minutes: Key MN Marty Nethery, Public Safety Commission Chairman SRG Sheila R. Gilfigan, ACM/Community Services JW John Wohlmuth, City Manager CF Mayor Pro Tem Cindy Finerty AS Lt. Andrew Shouse, Palm Desert Police Department DW Captain Dan Wilham, Palm Desert Police Department JB Jim Butzbach, Public Safety Commissioner RL Rick Lebel, Public Safety Commissioner GK Gloria Kirkwood, Public Safety Commissioner JF Councilman Jim Ferguson MG Mary P. Gates, Recording Secretary MN Then we'll move to Item L, which is Packet Section N-O — Police Department budget. Will there be a staff presentation on this, or do you want to get right to it? SRG I think you have the proposed budget. We've all looked at our budgets City-wide (unclear) 17 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 MN Well, there are a number of recommendations and options in this. SRG I think that the Police Department has looked, as has every other department in the City, at a 15% reduction, and we might be able to decrease our costs by implementing cuts. The Police Department has come forward (unclear) and the options are potential decreases in costs for the City (unclear). MN And not having...the Commission doesn't have an overall idea of the budget, but what you're saying is the goal is, at least across the board, a total 15% from the City budget as a whole, is that correct? SRG And I would defer to the City Manager. JW Our forecast revenues for 09/10, coming down from 08/09, is about $54 to $47 million. Sales tax is down year over year somewhere hovering right around 20% because we consider, as you know, in the City of Palm Desert how we primarily fund things. We get as a percentage of our total budget little property tax, quite a bit of TOT or bed tax, and a lot of sates tax. So sales tax is our biggest hit this year, about a 20% reduction forecast, which translates to about a $7 million cut in revenues which translates to about a little over $7 million cut to our operations budget. In order to get there with all departments, a memo went out to ask each department to cut roughly about 15%. We've been doing that with most of the City departments so far, and we haven't had the meeting with the Council on the Sheriff or the Fire budget, but I asked them also to look at different options to get to 15%, not that every department has to be right at 15% because one department might have a little more, but ultimately we have to get down to a balanced budget. So in order to get there, I looked at the Sheriff's budget, and my recommendation to the Council was about a 4% cut in the Sheriff's budget. Looking at the different options that Lt. Shouse and Dan Wilham came up with was about a 4% cut. Trying to keep officers on the street and maintain, I think 1.55 is our current officers per thousand...you'll see a lot of the cuts have to deal with CSO's and our Washington substation...some of those options we chose to maintain our level of service that we have now as well as utilize some of the cuts to balance the budget. So that's what we chose, and Andy or Dan, if you want to go through those and describe those. CF Can I just offer one comment? I just want you all to know that I had an opportunity to go out to Operation Falling Sun to the command post, and to watch all these agencies come together was absolutely remarkable, but just to say that the crime, the gangs, the narcotics, they're all there, and they need to be stopped and they need to be stopped from coming into our city. And I have a real concern, and I want your independent opinion...but the concern is when you remove a CSO, you take a patrol officer off the streets just because a CSO can do a lot of things like accident reports, transporting prisoners, that the patrol 18 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 officer would then have to do if that CSO position is eliminated. And we know that the battle that we have fought by finally getting the number of deputies that we wanted, we waited and waited...you know, we started at nine positions...we finally have everybody on board with the exception of one motor officer, and now you can actually see a police presence out there. And then we get hit with this, and we turn around and say well, you know, we can remove this or that. So I hope that you look at this as options and recommendations, but also you probably read in the report of what's gone on the last year that the crime is up, property crime is up and burglaries are up, larceny is up. Violent crime is down, but the stuff that affects everyday homeowners, everyday residents, is up. So I just want you to take a really hard look at what the proposal is going to be and give us your best thoughts. AS I have some comments, and I think that Captain Wilham will as well. I created this proposed budget, the Captain and I did, very cautiously, very prudently. We're trying to be not only good contract partners with the City of Palm Desert and the Sheriff's Department but also a good department partner along with the other City departments. So we created the various recommendations and then options kind of in a least damage to most damage categories. So it goes from what's going to create the least amount of damage to the Police Department to what will have more significant impact. Any significant cuts, as we go through these, there will be some public safety impact. The removal of officers on the street will have a domino effect; removal of CSO's on the streets to transport prisoners to the jail, for example, will have a domino effect because the officer will have to take that person to the jail themselves. So there will be a domino effect as the cuts get more and more significant. You heard from Chief Thetford that the State is going to be capping their limit on State prisoners. That, coupled with economic strain I think that individuals are experiencing now and over the next few years, will also have a domino effect on crime throughout the State of California as well as the Valley. So I think that's important to keep in mind. The Police Department definitely supports and believes in a global approach to law enforcement, and we support the task force philosophy with regard to combating gang activity/gang crime as well as narcotics. Although you saw one of the options was to eliminate the Task Force Officer, as we start cutting peace officers, we had to come up with where are we going to do the least amount of damage, and so that's why you see that option there. But we do support that effort, and we do support the global approach. Ultimately, the cops on the streets make a difference. I brought to this commission a report on the Holiday Theft Suppression program. You saw that we put out about twice the amount of hours that we did in 2007, and we saw about half the calls for service. Cops on the streets makes a difference. You also saw during the recent traffic report, the year to date totals from 2008, we wrote 50% more citations in 2008 than we did in 2007, and we saw a 26% reduction in injury collisions. Cops on the streets makes a difference. By the same token, taking cops off the streets is going to 19 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 make a difference, too. So those are my thoughts. I think the Captain probably has something he would like to say. DW As Councilmember Finerty and Andy said, crime is not getting smaller, it's getting larger in the City. Population is growing, our business area is larger. I think the Department, as it currently is, is lean and efficient. We certainly don't advocate any cuts to the Police Department; however, we need to be good partners with the City. We understand that. I think that, as Andy said, our primary function is our deputies handling calls for service, and we need to ensure that we maintain that and have peopte available to respond to calls for service and continue with some of the proactive programs that we've been doing. We're looking at things like cutting CSO's, and I guess on the face of it, it may look like, yes we're cutting CSO's but we're not cutting officers. In reality, we are because those CSO's perform functions that the officers don't have to, the patrol officers don't have to perform, and if the CSO's are gone, then the patrol officers wilt be filling those functions...transporting prisoners to jail, handling our misdemeanor crimes and non-injury traffic collisions, and things like that. We're going to tie up these officers, and we're not able to use them for more serious offenses. As Mr. Fields was talking about, the State is going to be releasing up to 54,000 inmates into California...he said about 5,500 or 5,600 will be in Riverside County, and I think that number is closer to 2,800 actually, and they will be unsupervised. They're going to be release unsupervised and not on patrol, they will just be released. We're certain that those people are going to be reoffending. With the economy, crime is also going to rise, and we're certain that robberies and thefts...we're already seeing that pattern....robberies and theft and crimes like fraud and identify theft and elder fiduciary abuse and things like that are going to be on the rise. And obviously we need our staff to combat those issues. Again, as I said, we understand that the current situation for the City is rough. I mean, as John said, there is a $7 million shortfall this year, and we want to be a good partner with the City. Just keep in mind these are options or recommendations based on us trying to be a good partner with the City, not necessarily anything...we're not advocating these cuts. We just proposed these cuts to help to do our part, I guess, and we think that the proposed cuts in the order that we have proposed them will have the least impact on our ability to provide service to the community. That said, the Public Safety Commission certainly can take a look at our proposals as we did. We sat down with John and other staff in the City and went over these and kind of decided what we thought would have the least impact on the Department, and we've obviously open to your suggestions as well. I guess that about covers it. MN Thanks, Captain. Before I open it up for questions, can I ask you a question? There is a built-in, of course, increase to the Sheriff's budget because of the collective bargaining increase. Are you looking for a 4% or more decrease from this year's actual number or from that number with the projected collective bargaining increase? 20 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 JW We're looking at a 4% reduction from...not including the cost of living or whatever collective bargaining agreement. It's not just that, iYs costs that we can't cut....for example, fuel...if they're budgeting a certain amount of fuel, it doesn't matter if I want to cut it...thaYs what they're going to have to pay for fuel. So they provided a budget to us under the contract, and there is an increase...l think we put, ultimately, because we didn't know what it was going to be...3.5? AS That's right. JW About 3.5 pecent above 08/09 we put for 09/10, so 4% is a reduction of what would be 09/10. MN It would be 09/10 with a built-in (unclear) that you know you can't control. So that number...that's the $15,388,000 number that's on the second page, so you're looking to try and get 4% off of that, which would be 600 and some off thousand dollars, $650,000 in round numbers. JW Well, ultimately...if you have a blank sheet and no political issues, we'd try to get a 15% cut. MN Of course. JW As you look down the priorities, 15% starts hitting a lot more significant issues than Community Service Officers. MN Okay. Thank you for that clarification. DW Just, if I may, I'm sorry....just another point of clarification. We discussed what our cut recommendations would be. Obviously, if there's something that you see here that you think is more important than the list of priorities, we could certainly look at an adjustment in that order as well. MN You may hear of some from this Commission, Captain, some reprioritizations or at least questions about that because we've done some of this in the past, and sometimes there are different opinions about priorities, but of course we always want to hear your thoughts because you guys are the guys in the field. Commissioners....questions? Jim? JB Captain, have these items been prioritized by your perceptions befinreen you and Andy? DW Yes, Andy and I sat down and had several discussions at length regarding this. Honestly, it's like anything...you know, after we came up with this list in our order of what we thought our priority was at the time, looking at it today, I might make 21 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 some amendments to it. But overall I think the proposals, if the cuts are going to be required, then I think this is pretty close to what we need to do in order of our priority. MN I think the way I read it is the things that are at the top of the list are the lease potential impact, and the things at the bottom of the list are the most potential impact. RL I have a comment. I've been a member of the Public Safety Commission here in Palm Desert for a little over 12 years and have worked diligently to try to provide the service increases as appropriate as we've moved along during those 12 years, and I know it has taken us some time to achieve the level of service that we have now. Even though we may have desired that level of service several years ago, it took a while to achieve the level that we have at the present time. I understand the City's need to make some reductions. Having been a Chief Administrative Officer of a public safety agency, I know that those decisions are very difficult to make and hard to deal with on a very personal level. I would agree, looking at page 2 of the detailed budget appropriation request for 2009/2010, with respect to the recommendations...l would agree to the first three recommendations with some exceptions. Rather than eliminating two Sheriff Service Officer II position, recognizing that that is a priority list, I would oppose eliminating two of those. I would go along with or support the recommendation to eliminate one of them, but I'd feel it very, very difficult to recommend or support the recommendation to eliminate the two. I would agree with Recommendation 2A and 2B with respect to closing the Washington Street Substation and eliminating one CSO that is directly related to that Washington Street Substation. Having worked for a long time to support the Multi-Jurisdictional Gang Task Force, I would not agree to Option 1 or elimination of the deputy position related to that task force. I could agree to eliminating one of the three CSO Officers under Option 2, recognizing that to eliminate any of them would require additional work from the officers and take an officer off the street. I don't believe I could recommend or support recommending elimination of three of them, but I could understand and go along with recommending elimination of one of them. With respect to Option #3, that's a situation that we've discussed over the years a number of times. We've had difficulty in achieving any support from Desert Sands Unified School District to assist in funding that officer position, the School Resource Officer position. I would agree to elimination of that position unless Desert Sands could at least fund 50/50 support for that position. We've tried to achieve that over the years, and I know Ms. Gilligan has had a number of meetings with Desert Sands officials to try to achieve some support and some funding for that position. They've been always very understanding yet reluctant to support it. This is for their benefit and the benefit for all of our kids in the schools as well as for the benefit of public safety, and I would not desire elimination of that position; however, if they can't at least fund 50/50, come up with a 50/50 maximum position, then I would support elimination of it, particularly 22 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 at the middle school. Options 4A through 6 I do not support. I would prefer to see none of those eliminated, so I do not support those options. MN Gloria...any comments? I don't think we need to stake out any positions here, but you know, your thoughts... GK I pretty much agree totally with everything he stated; however, I would probably go ahead and consider eliminating Option #5 at this time. I concur totally with Councilmember Finerty. I think that we've tried very, very hard to raise the level here within the City with officers and have a presence, and I would like to see that maintained, and I just don't think it's something that we can do at this time. MN Okay...Jim? JB I just think Rick said it pretty well. As far as the School Resource Officer, it is a very valuable position. I think we've seen the fruits of that position over the years. To eliminate it from the middle school with the close proximity to the high school, if we did or that came to pass in eliminating that position, see if the high school resources officer couldn't bifurcate his duties to share in some respect the close proximity to each other. We worked so hard and so long on the canine position...iYs a valuable tool to the Police Department, but if we're going to lose a position, I think that would be the recommendation there...if push really came to shove on it, if there was no other (unclear) positions, I would recommend eliminating one of the two motor positions. MN Okay. You know the irony of this thing is that not too long ago, I think maybe ten years that I've been on the Commission, not too long ago we weren't up to staffing, and we were looking for recruits, and we were having difficulty recruiting, and the Department and the City and the County as a whole were very excited that we were able to fill all those positions, and we finally just got up to, within I think the last year, 18 months (unclear) what was fully authorized and of course now we're facing this budget crisis. Of course, it's a real crisis...not crisis, but a budget problem...it's a real problem, and we've got to address it. I don't think anybody in this room and no one on the Commission wants to do any of this. The way I'm reading it, if I'm correct, and the numbers, if I understand the numbers...and I know we're looking for more than 4%, whatever we can get that we can recommend to the Council...it's ultimately going to be the Council's decision, of course, but just as a guideline, if I'm understanding the numbers, a 4% reduction from that sort of built-in increase of $15.4 is about $600,000, a little more than that. That would be, just as a sort of middle ground, if you will, with Options 1 and 2...$14.8, $14.759...we're about a $600,000 reduction off of that sort of built-in thing...it's a little less than that, so it's sort of between those two, Options 1 and 2 and Options 1, 2, and 3. If you go below that, you're going to get more than a 4% a little bit, and if you go above that, you're going to get significantly less than a 4% reduction. So when I was looking at these, I was 23 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 kind of thinking about that, though I didn't have the numbers quite in mind. I think that's kind of, in terms of that number, where the break point is. The recommendations are, as I read this, recommendations by the Department and by staff, not that you want to make recommendations, we understand that, and the options are...we really are biting our lip to even put these in here, but we're trying to give the options and prioritize them...which, you know, you have to do. So it seems to me that, again, without...we're talking about this now because I think there may have to be some compromise on some of this, but the recommendations I think go without saying...the options....Option 1 I think I would at least initially support. I'm wondering if on Option 2 we could eliminate maybe only one or two. The School Resource Officer at Palm Desert Middle School I'd hate to see that go because we're talking kids and safety, but that would be a tough one. We get to Option 4A, and I'd like to hear maybe from the Captain or Lieutenant about...could you eliminate one of those or two of those traffic team officers...obviously the fewer you eliminate the less impact. The Canine position...l think all of us are excited about what's been happening in the last year with that and what that brings to the table from an enforcement position but also a public relations impact. And after that, I have a problem with everything, so that's kind of my thinking. You know, Captain or Lieutenant, you've got eliminate three Community Service Officer II positions a couple of slots above eliminating four Traffic Team Officers. What if you could eliminate one Traffic Team Officer and one or two of those CSO's...that doesn't work as well? DW As I said earlier, nothing is real palatable. As several people have said, we're fully staffed finally. When I arrived here about 15 months ago, I made it a priority to get the City of Palm Desert fully staffed. We have done that. I think that we can look at any combination of cuts here. The traffic positions are important because we have seen a decrease in traffic collisions...that has been effective; however, that said, I have read this over many times over the past few weeks, and the...Mr. Butzbach commented about one of the motor officers...we actually, and Andy and I discussed this at length, we kind of feel the motor officers are a little bit more versatile because they have the ability to either...we can use them for anything. They can ride a motor if thaYs what's necessary, we can put them in a traffic car, we can put them in a beat car and they can handle calls for service. They're really the most versatile officers that we have, so we thought if we kept them on, we could still utilize them in any one of those capacities as needed as time goes on depending on what cuts we'd have to make. You know, there's an argument for every position. The CSO positions certainly free up the deputies to handle more serious issues. The Gang Task Force position has really given us the benefit of the entire Gang Task Force and given us a team of people that we can utilize if necessary. So it's kind of a tough call, I guess. We could really make any combination of cuts if, you know, one is more or less palatable to the other. I'm willing to discuss any of those issues. I would just ask that, you know, if we decide to go one way or the other, that we discuss it so that, 24 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 you know, for example, I could explain...like, for example, the motor position and why we came to that decision. And these are kind of in our order of priority. It was difficult to determine what we were going to cut and what we weren't going to cut. They all have a lot of benefit to them. The SRO at the middle school...the SRO's currently both of them are extremely busy and, in fact, before all this came along, Andy and I had talked about perhaps asking for another SRO for the high school. We also had considered asking...if everything was perfect, we'd be asking for another narcotics officer and an SRO and another beat car. Obviously, that is not the case. MN Are there not two SRO's at the high school and one at the middle school...is that where we are on that? DW No AS Two total, one at the high school and one at the middle school. CF Could you go back to what you said about asking for, if all things were wonderful, why you'd be asking for another narcotics task force officer. DW Because I think that narcotics right now is one of our bigger problems in the City. We do have somewhat of a problem at the schools. I have a narcotics officer assigned to the Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force. He's a County position, not a City position, and he spends a lot of time in the City of Palm Desert. He's doing a great job, but he spends an inordinate amount of time in the City of Palm Desert dealing with some issues at the high school as well as some street level dealers that are operating in the Palm Desert Country Club area and in the downtown area here in Palm Desert and some other areas around the City. So we kind of felt that we could possibly use another position. That said, we are applying for a grant for the City, and we're going to be asking for a gang officer and a narcotics officer. It's grant money that is supposed to be used to help curb border violence, and we feel that border violence is obviously caused mostly by narcotics, is driven by narcotics and gang activity. However, there is no guarantee that we will get that, get those positions, and even if we get them, the City would have to agree...it's only funding for two or three years...two years, and then we would have to decide whether or not we're going to keep that or whether or not the City could continue to fund it. I'd say based on the current financial situation, it may not be usable to get the grant if we can't continue to fund those positions after the two-year period. 25 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 MN So in looking back at this, and I'm sure you guys have spent a lot of hours on this...since this report was put together, you haven't reprioritized...and this is where you are. AS Yes, and if I may...there certainly can be a mixing and matching for this (unclear) more palatable to cut a traffic officer versus a couple of CSO's, then you can do that. I think our thought process regarding cutting the CSO positions was that we were trying to keep our sworn staff intact as much as we could and looking at the non-sworn positions first and then as it got uglier and uglier delving into the realm of peace officers on the street. And that's why we kind of prioritized it that way. With regard to the SRO at the middle school, like I mentioned before, there is a domino effect...we eliminate that SRO at the middle school, the effect will be not only less interaction with the children at the school with the deputy sheriff over there, but calls that that deputy handles now at the school with either be handled by the SRO at the high school, which obviously he won't be at the high school, or handled by patrol officers who will have to respond to the middte school and therefore not be available on the street. So that's kind of...you know, several steps down the line where you kind of have to start thinking about eliminating these two positions. DW I know Andy just sort of did a reprioritize on (unclear) we've got one more position that Sheila just reminded me of that we haven't filled that we were funded for that position, is that right, Andy? If we don't fill that vacant motor position, that's equivalent to about $225,000. JB (unclear) DW So if we don't fill that, thaYs about $225,000 we could cut just by not filling that job. If we close the substation, as we've already given them notice, eliminate that position, thaYs another $120,000, and elimination of the two SSO officers is another $120,000, so now we're up to close to $500,000, well over $400,000, which really would only require us to eliminate one additional fully funded position, and if we eliminated one traffic position, we could maintain all of the other positions in the City. MN That would be the sworn officers, the traffic position, and you're saying an option might be to keep all three of the CSO II's and the SRO. DW That would keep everybody, SRO's, CSO II's...l hate to do this in this meeting because John and I already talked about it...sorry, John. 26 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 JW There are several issues there. One is a contract issue where we are actually paying for a CSO or a Sheriff Service Officer that others use as well. DW Right, and that was for the SSO's, and John's exactly right. The Sheriff Service Officer that we proposed to eliminate, I think that was our first option. We have two of the those SSO's, and they perForm logistical duties at the station, and actually they're being utilized a lot for the entire station, not just for the City of Palm Desert, and in my opinion, the City shouldn't be paying for those positions. MN So let me just understand this, the vacant position. The budget number that is given is sort of the starting point, the 09/10 $15,388,348.57. That includes that position, so the number....so if we...just looking at this, going back to the 4%, if you put that $225,000 in there, and you really kind of get there at the end of Option 1 and certainly at the end of Options 1 and 2...all the recommendations and Option 1 and/or Options 1 or 2. Frankly, I was going to suggest that we either go...unless there had been a reprioritization from the Department...that we recommend either Options 1 and 2, all the recommendations plus Options 1 and 2, which I thought was sort of the middle point on that 4% or the one under it, which is also....one's a little less than 4%, one's a little more. But if you're looking at...and it's not all driven by the numbers...what we're trying to do the least harm, especially to the sworn officers. (unclear) think you put that $225,000 back in, you kind of move it up one notch to the Option 1, and the Option 1 and 2 is kind of right around a 4% decrease. That doesn't mean we can't cut more, as John pointed out, but certainly that gives us a little bit more room to maneuver maybe. CF I was just doing a little math with my calculator here, and it might be helpful. If the 4% as the City Manager is requesting is $615,000, we back out $225,000 for the vacant motor officer, $53,600 for the Washington Street Substation, the CSO associated with that substation, and the two SSO's, and that means there's only $143,000 away from the goal. MN And that's Option 1 basically because you start with $15.4 million, and you've already got $225,000 out of it, so all we need to cut is another $400,000. $600,000 less $225,000...$400,000, and you get it down to $15 million in round numbers, that's Option 1, that would be about 4% give or take a couple of points. That's why I said Option 1 ...you know, the three recommendations and Option 1 kind of gets you there, and then Options 1 and 2 gets you a little more than a 4% decrease, and you're not at Option 3, which is cutting the School Resource Officer, which is kind of, you know, again you're talking about kids, although all of these are tough decisions, and you're not at Option 4A which is cutting sworn officers, sworn personnel. Now if the Department said we've reprioritized and it's better to cut one of the traffic team officers (unclear) and two of the CSO's, then... 27 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 RL (unclear) motor officers MN Well, they don't want to cut one of the motor officers because they're the most versatile, I think that's what the Captain was pointing out. DW We do have one that's currently not filled, it's vacant. MN Yeah, but I'm taking that into account. (unclear) RL I come up with $956,000 MN If you do what, if you go where? RL If you take Recommendation 1 and reduce it by one, if you take Recommendations 2A and 2B, if you take one of the three CSO's from Option 2, if you eliminate or use Option 3 removing the School Resource Officer, if you eliminate one of the two motor officer positions, one not filled at the present time, and if you eliminate the canine officer position, you come up with $956,932. MN The recommendations are the ones they think are the least damaging, and I don't know why you wouldn't just adopt all of the recommendations. None of it's good. DW Mr. Nethery, honestly, looking at this list, I'm not sure it wouldn't be more prudent for us to just eliminate the vacant traffic officer and one traffic team officer and the first two recommendations. That way that would save us...the vacant position is just that — it's vacant. The traffic position would eliminate one position that we're currently using, and that would save the Gang Task Force officer, three Community Service Officers, and one School Resource Officer. So basically we eliminate one and keep five. So perhaps... MN So you're suggesting eliminate one traffic team officer, the vacant motorcycle officer, that's about $450,000... DW Recommendations 1 and 2. John, do you have a problem with that? MN Recommendations 1 and 2...you're looking at...that's about $625,000, I think. 28 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 CF So you've got $225,000 and $216,109, $53,600 is Washington Substation, $70,000 is the CSO associated with it, and the two SSO's is $123,052, so you come to $687,815, and what John was looking for was $615,533. MN That includes Recommendation 2B as well? So that would be $685,000 in round numbers, $680,000. CF And you did this all without a calculator. ThaYs what a lawyer can do. MN ThaYs Recommendation 1 (elimination of two SSO's), Recommendation 2A (close Washington Street Substation), Recommendation 2B (eliminate one CSO), and then the vacant motor position and one traffic team officer...that's what you're suggesting, is that right? That gets you to $680,000, which is probably, what 4.5% or 5%, something like that. DW I want to ensure that John is okay with that. MN John, any thoughts on that? JW I apologize. I have a doctor's appointment and will have to run. I have one question for Dan. On the Gang Task Force, is the County cutting that position it provided the Cove Communities? DW The County doesn't have a position on the Gang Task Force. JW I thought you had one position with the Gang Task Force. DW I have a narcotics position on the Narcotics Task Force. They are not cutting that position as of yet. We did discuss, and I'm glad you reminded me John, we did discuss that if we need to cut the Gang Task Force position, perhaps (and I've already broached the subject with the other cities) perhaps we ask Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells to share in the cost of that position so that that expense is shared by all three cities. I think that that's probably a better way, a better approach for the City. JW So how would that work? Would the City fund that position, would the County (unclear) the Gang Task Force? DW No, the City currently (unclear) the Gang Task Force. The City would pay a portion...if we decided to go that route with the Gang Task Force position, the City would pay a portion of that using whatever formula we decided to use. I don't know if we want to use the Cove Commission formula of 50/30/20... 29 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 JW So honorable Chair, under that scenario, if that was done, you see Option 1 (eliminate the deputy position for the Gang Task Force) page 3, under that scenario, that wouldn't be $118,539, that would be about $85,000. So if we went to the other cities and had them pay per formula, it would be 70% City of Palm Desert, 23% Rancho Mirage, 7% Indian Wells. MN So the savings is about 30 grand less. JW Probably about 40 grand less. MN 40 grand less. The recommendation or the option that we were just talking about was Recommendations 1, 2A, 2B, one traffic, and the vacant. That's about the $680,000 that we came up with. What if we went...Captain, I'm really asking you because that seems like a good option, but what if we did exactly the same but instead of the traffic officer, we eliminated the gang prevention (that's $80,000) and one of the CSO's, which would be about another $84,00O...that's $165,00O...we wouldn't be quite as much, we'd be a little under. What if we did that? Would you like that better, or do you like the first option? I know you don't like any of them. AS If I may say, I like that option a lot better than cutting a sworn officer from the traffic team. RL As do I. JF So deal or no deal. MN It's about a $40,000 difference. It will only be about $640,000 or $635,000 if my math is right, not the $680,000. DW Well, we're actually talking about, just so we're clear, we're actually talking about sharing the expense of the Gang Task Force Officer, not eliminating it. Palm Desert's share would be... CF $70,786 SRG That's part of what you're saying, isn't it? MN Yes, I'm saying that the savings wouldn't be as great as we thought, but if we eliminate it....okay, so iYs $70,000 and one of the CSO's is about $80,00O...that's $150,000, and we do that and we keep the traffic officer, which is about $220,000. So iYs not going to be $680,000, iYs going to be $610,000. A different approach. 30 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 JW I'm sorry I have to leave. MN No problem. Are you with me, Captain? DW I'm with you, I just think that our math is a little off here because we're talking about...we're eliminating $70,000. In reality, we're not because our cost as I understand it is 70%, right? SRG Palm Desert is 70%, Rancho Mirage is 23%, and Indian Wells is 7%. DW So whatever 70% of$117,977 is would still be our cost. MN Oh... CF $82,584 MN Oh, we don't eliminate the $80,000, we still have the $80,000... SRG Yes MN So we only eliminate 30% of $117,000...1 see...that's $35,000, $34,000 is all we would save by eliminating that position. DW Correct. MN Okay. DW Andy and I disagree a little bit, I guess, as far as the traffic officers. Andy would like to keep them, and for good reasons. I mean, obviously, our traffic accidents are down, and (unclear) RL Yes, good annual report you put together. I support the position of trying to keep that traffic officer. DW (unclear) things that Andy and I didn't actually agree to. CF The Commission could, if they wished, have a couple of recommendations to the Council. You're not locked into one, and you could have one where, you know, you think this needs to be in...maybe you haven't met your 4% but if you do need to make 4°/o, this is what it would be. So don't be afraid to think outside the box. 31 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 AS If I could try and confuse everybody...if you reviewed the Annual Report, you did see the significant impact the Gang Task Force Officer has had... RL Absolutely AS ...in the City of Palm Desert as well as the entire Task Force in the City of Palm Desert. I think as the Captain said when he was giving his initial comments, you can make a case for just about any position. So you have a very difficult (unclear) MN Well, what I'm hearing is that the Department is looking right now at maybe, at least one recommendation that gets us to...l've got $692,000 but maybe I did it...when I do it on paper, it's not as good as when I do it in my head...l don't know why...l got $692,000 instead of $680,000, but Recommendation 1, Recommendation 2A, Recommendation 2B, and then one traffic team officer and the vacant motor position. Did you get $692,000? CF $687,000 MN $687,000, okay. So that's (unclear) the 4%. That might be...if we wanted to make one recommendation, and that's certainly what I think we're hearing from the Department, in that range anyway. That might be one recommendation, and if we wanted to make a second recommendation, either a lesser cut or a greater cut, to the Council as sort of what we think are the two preferred Public Safety Commission options, not to confuse with these options, we could certainly do that. ThaYs kind of what I think we're hearing from the Department. SRG If I could add something. I think what I'm hearing is what we would take forward as staff, with the Police Department, is that the Public Safety Commission has worked hard, as has staff and the Council, to get to the budgeted level of service by filling the vacant positions, and we're at that level of service right now. If we have to cut, you're saying your recommendations would be as you presented them. I think that's a greater significance more so than a number, that you people are looking at it from a public safety standpoint, that we don't meet the numbers, but this is what the Commission recommends. MN Certainly I think the Commission, you've heard the comments, I think the Commission, if we took a vote, would be unanimous in...we've gotten there, let's don't cut any of this. If somebody disagrees with that, they should say something. 32 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 CF I think you need to make that a motion and have it in the Minutes so that it's loud and clear about what you really feel. That's why I was trying to stress earlier — independent. MN I understand. But I think we need to look at...we need to be flexible and take a look at these things. Any comments, Commissioners? Do you want to...does anyone want to...we can put forward a couple of motions, a couple of ideas, to the Council. Anyone want to make a motion about not making any cuts now that we've reached the level that we've been seeking or some variation of that? JB (unclear) negotiations ought to be a good starting point is just to keep it at status quo. I can appreciate the Captain and Lieutenant's feelings. I've sat in that chair many times myself, so I know what they're trying to convey, and I think....number one concern in any community is the tevel of public safety and the effectiveness of the program that you have in that city. I think you can make a very strong argument over maybe fixing or repaving a highway versus losing a number of police officers. Any survey you would take, the number one thing that people are concerned about in the community is the level of public safety in their community, so as a starting point, without eliminating things, if we're going to make two recommendations, my first recommendation would be to keep the status quo as recommended. MN Are you making a motion to that effect as a recommendation...that is your recommendation? JB That is a partial recommendation, that's just the first part of it. MN Well, we can do it piece meal. Does anyone want to second that? RL I would second that. MN Alright, any comments? All in favor, say "aye". JB Aye G K Aye RL Aye MN Aye...unanimous MG And that's to maintain the status quo? 33 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 MN If at all possible, especially in light of the fact that we've sort of struggled in the last couple of three years to get to the levels that were targeted by the Commission and the Council. We have lengthy reports about the level per thousand, etc., and what our target was, and we've kind of gotten there with one vacancy. So, what about if in fact cuts are made or have to be made, do we want to make a recommendation along the lines the Captain has suggested here in sort of a revised priority, or do we have something different than that? RL No, basically follows that priority, with an exception...that would be to...l would move to recommend elimination of one of the two SSO II positions from Recommendation 1 (for a savings of $61,526), I would recommend Recommendation 2A and Recommendation 2B (for a savings of $53,600 and $70,054), I would recommend eliminating one of the CSO II positions in Option 2 (for a savings of$84,780), I woutd recommend elimination of one of the budgeted motor officer positions in Option 6 (for a savings of $225,000), and would recommend elimination of one of the four traffic team officers from Option 4A. MN What did you say about...l'm sorry I missed it...what did you say, Rick, about the Option 1, which is the Gang Task Force...did you skip that one? RL I did skip that one. MN Okay. So you're recommending, so far, you're recommending one only under Recommendation 1 of the two SSO's... RL Correct MN ...Recommendation 2A, Recommendation 2B... RL Correct MN ...Option 2 with one only of the three CSO's... RL Correct MN ...Option 4A, one only, and Option 6, one only, which is the vacant position. RL Correct MN Okay, is that your proposal? 34 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 RL That's my proposal. CF And that total is $711,069 MN What does that run out as? CF $711,069 RL Slightly over the number that they're looking for. MN And if you were to back down off of 2 or 3 and add one position back to that, what would it be? In other words, if you were to....let me give you the direct question. This is the lowest priority is the SSO... RL I understand that. MN ...so why is it that you're trying to...l guess the word is "save" one of those if it's the lowest Department... RL Because of the logistical support they provide to the officers. If they're not doing that, someone else has to do it. CF What about the CSO's? MN (unclear) eliminated an SSO and keep...it's not quite the same amount of savings... RL Right, the CSO I recommended was one of the three in Option 2. MN What if you keep the CSO and eliminate the second SSO, which is the Department's lowest priority, see what I'm saying? RL I understand that. I'd be willing to do that. DW Mr. Lebel, just so we're clear, I think...in my opinion, the Sheriff Service Officer who does the logistical support should be part of our baseline service. It is...in most stations, the City...several years ago, to give a tittle history, the City several years ago contracted for the Sheriff Service Officers because we wanted...the City asked that we keep our front office open until two o'clock in the morning, and we previously kept that office open until two o'clock. It was later put back to 11, and now we close at 5. So, that is the only reason the City had contracted for those SSO positions. No other city contracts for them, and as far as logistical support, that's really part of the baseline service thaYs paid for through the contracted rate. 35 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 MN So you're saying that's not as important a position as the CSO... DW Correct MN ...and that's why it's your lowest priority. DW Yes, and in my opinion, the City shouldn't be paying for that position now anyway. MN So... RL I would amend my motion, then. MN Okay. So it's Recommendation 1 in its entirety and then you would not eliminate any of the CSO's in Option 2. RL Correct MN Okay. Any other comments or second to that. JB What does that run out to now? CF $687,815 JB I would second that motion. MN Alright, any comments or discussion? Councilman Ferguson is unusually quiet today. Are you not feeling well? JF No, we're supposed to be liaisons and just listen. MN I know, I know, I hear you. JF We did this this morning, we did it two days ago, and I'm a little burned out on budgets. MN And iYs in our laps now, anyway. Alright, anything etse? Alright, we have a motion and a second. Your motion was that, if indeed, if I understand it right, if indeed there have to be cuts and they have to be at about the 4% level for Police services, then this is the recommendation of the Commission to the Council to get there. RL Right 36 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 MN Obviously, less is better. RL Right MN Alright...all in favor say "aye" J B Aye GK Aye RL Aye MN Aye. Unanimous. Motions: Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, recommend that the City Council, if at all possible, keep the status quo as far as the Police budget in tight of the fact that the City and the Police Department have struggled through the years to reach the current level of service as targeted by the Public Safety Commission and City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lebel and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. Commissioner Lebel moved to, by Minute Motion, recommend to the City Council (if indeed there have to be cuts and they have to be at about the 4% level): Recommendation 1 — elimination of two (2) Sheriff Service Officer II positions ($123,052.80); Recommendation 2A — closure of the Washington Street Substation ($53,600); Recommendation 2B — elimination of one (1) Community Services Officer I position associated with the Washington Street Substation ($70,054.40); elimination of one of the budgeted motor officer positions in Option 6 (approximately $225,000); and elimination of one of the four traffic team officers from Option 4A ($216,109.80). Motion was seconded by Commissioner Butzbach and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. 37 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 M. Consideration of the Order of the Agenda This matter was considered just prior to New Business Item A. Please see that portion of the Minutes for Commission discussion and action. VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. Report from Palm Desert Police Department Relative to POST (Peace Officer Standards & Training) Reimbursement (continued from the meetings of February 11, 2009, and March 11, 2009) Lt. Shouse reviewed his report, noting that POST only allowed for reimbursement of qualified training to law enforcement agencies. Even though the City contracts with a law enforcement agency (Riverside County Sheriff), officer training that is approved by City staff and funded using City monies would not qualify for reimbursement because the City is not a law enforcement agency. He said the Sheriff's Department was in communication with a representative of POST to look at ways to address the issue of POST reimbursement to contract cities. He said that some of the training to which the Department had sent officers did qualify for limited POST reimbursement; however, a letter had been received from POST indicating they had suspended reimbursement for several areas because of their budget limitations. Chairman Nethery stated he felt something needed to be done as far as looking into the possibility of changing the ruling that contract cities do not qualify for reimbursement. Commissioner Butzbach said he was not aware that contract cities did not qualify for reimbursement, although he understood there were various levels of training. Upon question by Commissioner Butzbach, Lt. Shouse clarified that officers who are assigned to the Palm Desert Police Department receive the basic Peace Officer training, 24 hours mandatory training, every two years. The Sheriff's Department pays for that mandated training, which is built into the contract rate, and that is reimbursed by POST to the Sheriff's Department. What is not reimbursable is when officers go for other training; i.e., sending the Special Enforcement Team officers to bicycle school. That training is in addition to the basic level of training and is to enhance the 38 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 officer's position as a dedicated SET officer for the City of Palm Desert. In that case, the City of Palm Desert pays the tuition, and POST will not reimburse the City for that expenditure. He noted there were some exceptions, such as motor officer training (two weeks of training at the San Bernardino County Sheriff's training center). The Palm Desert Police Department does not pay the registration fee for that training. The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department bills POST directly for the cost once the officer graduates from the training. Commissioner Butzbach noted that the POST Commission was created by the Legislature in the early 1960's, and he asked whether that body made the rules and regulations rather than the Legislature. Ms. Scully responded that as far as POST reimbursing contract cities, that would take someone to introduce legislation to mandate it. She said while the POST Commission administered this program, it would take legislative action to change the rules. Commissioner Butzbach asked Ms. Scully to discuss this with Senator John J. Benoit. Ms. Scully noted that she would be meeting with him on Tuesday, April 14, 2009. She added that Senator Benoit was on the Senate Public Safety Commission, and she said she would be happy to discuss this with him. She added that she also had a meeting with Assemblyman Brian Nestande and would discuss this with him as well. Commissioner Butzbach moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the report from the Palm Desert Police Department relative to POST reimbursement. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. IX. OLD BUSINESS None X. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION (S) None 39 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 XI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. Citizens on Patrol Program 1. Monthly Report for March 2009 Commissioner Lebel moved to continue this item to the next Public Safety Commission meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. B. Legislative Update 1. ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) CHRP (COPS Hiring Recovery Program) 2. SB663 — Low Speed Vehicle Pilot Program Commissioner Lebel moved to continue these items to the next Public Safety Commission meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. C. Comments by Police and Fire Departments 1. "SOG'S Training 2009" Chief Brooker noted that this training (Standard Operating Guideline Training) will take place April 13-15 and 24-26, 2009. Mr. Stendell stated that although he had close to 100 people on the mailing list, he was having difficulty reaching capacity for the CERT classes due to scheduling conflicts, and he asked that any interested individuals be directed to him. D. Comments by Staff 1. Report Relative to Video Surveillance Pilot Program Commissioner Lebel moved to continue this item to the next Public Safety Commission meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. 40 APPROVED MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2009 E. Comments by Public Safety Commissioners None XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lebel moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:40 p.m. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirkwood and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Vice Chairman Larsh ABSENT. � Mary P. Ga s, ecording Secretary 41