HomeMy WebLinkAbout0549.092December la, 1992
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
1 ·--4 rr;:;~,?;;E!J~~T OF , ~ IT""" REc,-URT I
IS .(~ L COUNCil PRIORI7Y I -----------
Palia' A9.ist~ to Ealt Palo Alt9 -Sixty D~y E%tensio~
Me~ers of the council:
~t ill aria:
EiC}:ht months ago, the City council authorized funding for four Palo
Alto police officers to take part in a regional enforcement effort
in East Palo Alto (the REO Team) for a six-month period. Council
expressly conditioned any continued assistance beyond the six-month
period on the revie~ and approval of East Palo Alto's long-range
pul::>lic sa.fety plan. This plan was to be developed during the
period of RED Team operation. Council has since granted two
subsequent extensions becaUS9 the plan was not yet ccmpl~te. The
plan has just recently been c·:nnpleted; however, due to a nc.mber of
questions and concerns about it, staff recommends a findl 6o-day
extension of Palo Alto's perticipation in the RED Team. Monies
from the original allocation remain aVailable to cover the
recommended extension costs.
D-e..QJtqroUD4
On March 2, 1992, Council approved police assistance to the City of
East Palo Alto. That assistance took the form of four Palo Alto
officers assigned to a regional enforc~ent effort for a six-month
period~ Other participating agencies were Menlo Park police (two
off jeers) , East Palo Alto (one officer), state Parole (one agent}
and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (one
agent). This assistance was provided at the request of East Palo
Alto's Police Chief and the East Palo Altc City Council, due to a
draroatic rise in crime in East Palo Alto and because the East Palo
Alto Police Department had neither-the staffing nor funding to
address the situation. This regional enforcement effort became
knOlor-n a:.i the RED Team {Regional Enfo:-cement Detail}. (Refer to
previous CMRs for additional information.)
Council approved this assistance predicated upon the development
an~ approval of a long-range (five-year) plan by the City of East
Falo Alto to address its publi~ safety responsibilities including
the number of officers, training needs, equipment, timing,
a$sociated costs and funding projection~. The council conditioned
any Palo Alto assistance beyond the initial six-month period on its
review of East Pale Alto's long-range plan. Council considered
that this plan was to be a "major ingredient-in deciding 'Whether
assistance would be continued.
9:92
•
o
Page Two
At the conclusion of the six-month period, East Palo Alto~s plan
was not yet complete. On September 24~ 1992, Council approved a
30-day extension of police assistance to a110 ..... East Palo Al to
additional time in which to complete their plan.
On october 21, 1992. East Palo Alto requested an additional
extension ~nding the November 3 election to al10.., the newly
constituted East Palo Alto city Council a~ opportunity to con9ider
the long-range plan~ The Palo Alto City Council approved this
second ~xtension to December 31, 1992. On November 23, 1992, the
East Palo Alto City Council received the plan and ~~proved the
crea~ion of a panel of staff and citizens to review it.
Baat Palo Alto Long-Range Plan
Staff's concerns surrounding the long-range public safety plan
submitted by the City of East Palo Alto surround two basic ar~as:
1) staffing levels and 2) revenue generation.
at.:rfinq Levelo.
It is unclear in the plan exactly .. hat police aasistance is
required from the City of Pal.e Alto and for how long. In
discussions with the E~st Palo Alto Police Department, their statf
indicates that they have the ability to hire and train about five
officers per year. At this rate, the City of Palo Alto or other
jurisdictions would have to commit resources for a minimum of four
years in order for East Palo Alto to attain its desired staffing
level. Normal attrition for the East Palo Alto Police Department
would extend the time commitment even longer4
Additionally, the plan presents no methodology as to how additional
(and current) resou,ces would be deployed ar.d wh~t mea~ures might
be instituted to gauge effectiveness of deploymoent. CUrrently,
East Palo Alto has no means of tracking its crime rate and trends.
Some mechanism, whether automated or manual, would be a necessary
first step in asoessing how resources ought to be used. This is
one of the principal difficulties in assessing RED Team
&ffectiveness. Anecdotal evidence from citizens and officers is
helpful, but is only one measure and may be imprecise. Before any
long-term re~ource commitment is made, some way to gauge benefits
is necessary.
Finally with regard to police res~~rces, the plan makes no mention
of training needs, equipment requirements ('tedth the except.ion of
footnote 3 on Exhibit A), time frdmes or other associated needs and
costs.
CMR:549:92
.. ~ .
,
f
"
Page Three
J\,ey,n',l,' Genaratio'cl
st~ff's second major concern with the long-term plan is the funding
projections upon which the plan is predicated. Staff has numerous
questions about the revenue projections which form the basis for
the public safety plan. Staff would like to review the development
agreements which relate to each of the major revenue sources (the
230 room hotel, the various Gateway 101 projects and the DeMonet
Industries proposal) with East Palo Alto representatives to verify
that the projected revenues are reasonable and can be realized
within the time frames proposed~ Fo!' ~)"ample. Palo Alto staff has
been involved in active discussions recently with expgrts in the
hotel industry, and the general consensus has been that financing
for a major hotel is non-existent in the current economic
environment and probably will continue to be so for the next three
to five years at a minimum. Even if the hotel were to be built,
occupancy projections are far above Palo Alto's experience.
Similarly, the projecteri sales tax revenue for the Gateway 101
project seems extremely optimistic: 1996-97 projected sales tax
revenues of $1.6 million equate to half of what Palo Alto currently
receives from the entire stanford Shopping Center, and it seems
unlikely that the Gateway 101 project can generate a revenue stream
of this. magnitude .,.ithin four years. However, without r&vie-wing
the actual development agreements, staff cannot assert definitively
that the revenues projected are unattainable. The only definitive
projection that staff can s~y conclusively is that East Palo Alto
stanas to lose parcel tax revenues of $900,000 per year starting in
1994-95.
COp;lul!llion
Staff requests additional time to obtain more information and to
clarify these issues and concerns prior to ma~ing a final
recommend:ation to council concerning continued police assistance to
East Pal,:, Alto. A sixty-day period, during 'Wr .. ich the RED Team
\I.'ould remain operational, .... ·ould provide statf a!'l opportunity to
meet with representatives of East Palo Alto to further evaluate the
plan. Staff will also coordinate a meeting with the Council
liaison committees of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Palo Alto and
the respective Police Chiefs~ Sufficient fund:s remain from the
Council's original $100,000 allocation to cover the overtime costs
associated with this extension. The City Attorney's office notes
that any long-tern police services arranqement will require
appropriate docWilentation, as well as CQuncil consideration of
liabjlity at risk allocation issues.
CHR:549:92
o
page Four
R.co_.nd:ation
Staff recommends that Council authorize a final sixty-day extension
(If continued. participation in the Red Team. During this time,
staff will clarify questions and concerns abo~t t~e plan. Staff
will return to council in mid-February with recommendations
regarding any continued participation based upon its reevaluation
of the East Palo Alto plan.
Respect£ully submitted,
436 92
341 92
240 92
Attachment: EPA Plan
CMR: 549: 92
c:;.' (/) ,
. 0 ~ (I---
-IS DURKIN
Police Chief
t
o
City of East Palo Alto
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 1 '2. 1992
TO: Honorable Mayor and CIty Co'",c:1
FROM: Aile., J. Parker, City Manager
SUBJ ECT: Comprehensive Police Plan
...-.. of .. CauncfI
W~~ Coats, Mayor
Pal Jotr..."" \1a! Ma,,,,
NeYiCa SU~ef
W:~i3J"n V:rl€ S
S~arif;;; Wilsci".
Please find attache--j to this cover memorandum fo~r (4) €)(htbits which detail the
recommended !evel of po~ic'ng req!Jried by thjs community. Tnese exhibits are:
Exhibit A. Scenario #1 summarizes our current level and cost of poljcing (i.5 swam
officers per ~OOO residents). Scenario #2 r.;air.tains tli6 C::.ment stafhng level but adjus1s
salaries twenty percent (20C,~) (see Exhibit C for justification), an increasB of
$330.340. 81' improving salary e-.nd benefits, better applican1s can be recrvrted which
results in better services and less liability exposure Mso. improved salaries and benel;~::i
resurt in better retention of employees which reduces training and rehire costs Scer1ario
#3 is the recommended jever of policing: twa (2} swom offkers per' 000 residents, a
commonly accepted ~rufe of thumb" for communities wrth high crime rates. Also included
is a frve~perscn lacticar force (Le., Red Team). Scenario #3 is detailed in E~hiDit B. To
achieve this recommended jevel of policing would require an additional $1,736,955
annually.
Exhibit 0 projec!s General Fund revenues for the next ten (10) years. Assumptions
include: 1) the parcel lax, which sunselS in 1994-95, will nol be re-enacted; 2) the
University Clrcl. project will c~me on-line; 3] t"e 23Q-:ociTl hotel will be a part 01 the
University Circle project (two developers have recenliy expressed inleresl in building
Ihe hotel ~Ihe land cosls lor parcel 3 can be wrihen down); and 4) the Gateway·,OI
project wi!1 come on-line. Given these assumptions, revenues would average
$1 ,S, 5,91 4 annuafly over thf2 next ten years, an amount suHlcient to slgnificant~y
upgrade Ihe level of policing. By year six (6). revenues ($1.736,589) would be Sufficient
to underwr~te the recommended lavei of policing. Scenario #3.
Other revenue-prodliclng options can also be pursued such as increased taxes (p.arcel
tax, utilny users lax) and grants from the State and Federal governments and
--.-r .
415 t.lni~81silJl A~s Easl Pafa AI/a Calilornia 94303 Tel. 415/ 853·310Q FaJ.: 415/ 853·J115
•
o
foundation!:.
Recommendation. This report was prepared in response to th~ Cilies of Menlo Park
and Palo AHo and San Mateo County, y,;,o have requested tnal this City adopt a long
term comprehensive police plan 2nd demolista;e how L'1af plan will be finanClaJly
underwritten. Based O~ this pran, then, the two Crties wHi dete;rni:-:e whetr~e: t.~e'i win
continue to financial~f contribute to East Palo Alia's policing effort and for how long. The
Countj will determine ~ they, too, Wlil participate,
T~erefore, it would be appropriate fer this C~y Counciilo cons,oe, to is recommended
police plan and to fooward same to \he Crt,es of Menlo Park and Palo AHo and the County
of San Mate-;) once adopted,
Respectlully sobmitted,
2
'-~.-
t
;',
c I
i
I
1 ,
(
PEIISONNEL
SWOIlN:
O(li{"eT
S~rgeant
l~i8utet)ant
( Captain
Chiflr
TOTAL SWOHN:
NON SWOIlN:
Clerk
Property CI(>fk
Code Enrorcellll!lIl Officer
Mechanic
TOTAL NON·SWOnN:
TOTAL l'EIlSONNf;I.
OPERATIONS & MAlNTf:NANCK
CAPITAL
,TAL ANNUAL COSTS
NtYr"S
1 All figuullJ are in 1992 doUi\f6,
SCENAlUO'1
(Existing Conditions)
• $ AMOUNT
27
" 2
0
I :w $1,9",1,220
6.5
I "9.(;-1")),710.
4r, $",23',0:10
$668,490
$33,160
$2,U:J6,580
Exhibit A
ANNUAL COSTS I
SCIINARIO ,2
(20% fllllRry Adjustment)
• $AMOllNT
27
(l
2
11
I :r;;-$L,27~I,fif)O
r'.fi
~_I-
\J.{"J $'2.91,710
45,r. t2.56(i,270
$668,490
$33,1fjO
$:I,266,mm
2 Jtepl'ltilcntH R -53% increasB in ~XP(lI'SCS ror Buch itl(lms 8.8 ,)!lychulogil'all1lld ,.oIY(!"rllph e1lUl11S,
vehic:1e maintlll'\Rnce, uniforms, and 8 26% inrf088e ill booking ret/fl.
:t Thill inrludell the purchB8tI or" nf!W vehidttll par year.
,
.1'lM ....... '_l~ .. ·""'_"~,_"
SCENARIO '3
(2 RwornllOOO residMhl
I'Iu9 TBclical fo"or<'8
• $AMOUNT
.2
7
2
I
I
"f.T $3,426.000
" I
I
I '17 ',J~5,OOO
£15 $3,781,000
$777,275
$115,2.60
$4,673,535
2
3
'-'.
~.:.",
'.0,"', ',: ~',-.
c-,
:I; ,: \'
?
:,'i ,.'. i.<
'l '.,
'. '_I
, .. '':,,'" .' .
"
,'\
• . ~~
Admiaistration
Patrol
Chie!
Se~eant
Subtotal
Captain
Lieutenant
So.-geant
Officer
Subtotal
IDvestigatiOns.~rds
Lieutenant
~'1'l!ant
Offic.:-r
Subtotal
Tactical Force
Sergeant
Offi~l!r
Su.btot.at
ExhibitB
OilPLOYMENT CF
SWORN PEJlSONNEL
UNDER
SCENARIO 13
1
1
1
1
4
32
1
1
6
1
4
TQTAL SWORN PERSONNEL
•
o
z
8
5
53
lUlV92
,
<.
-:
"~ Exhibit C
Folice Officer Salary COlllparisons By Quartile
Pollce Otfit:er Pim Step
1st South Sa.n Fta11 t1s.co $2,14'1 ~nd Bur-hnpme $2,9!5
Millbrae tZ,N9 H!lishorough $2,932
Pac:i.fj~a $2,807 Gilroy $2.953
San Matt-Q Ccwoty $2,850 1..<;5 Altos $2,994
Morg.a.n HiI! 52,80)0 B\1:lmanl $2,999
Daly CH·Y $«SSS u,.s Catc.s 53,011
Avet'a'le Sz,sU Av€rage $2,968
3rt! San JNe 13M3 4!h .Redw'J~d Ci~y $3,19'
San CarlM $3M5 Milpitas 13,201
Me{\!Q Pa.tk S3,04S Fo-soter C~t} $3<20J
Sao M;ate.o S3,OS4 San Ero.l'"l-o $3,23"2
SantA Clan Count.y $3,095 Falo Alc.a $3,323
Mountain Vi.e~ .. IJ,J J5 Campbell $3,350
Ave-ragt' $3<0;2 Aver-abe $3,251
~PaloAlto $2,113
lsi Quartile Aven!te S2.i!Z(
Pereeo.tage Inerea.R to re&;h Average l'j'.03%
Poliee SeJ11eaJIt TQP Step
1st Pac±t'iea $3)127 2nd L(ni G--3~o.s 54,210
MillQrae $4,120 l,.Qs Ai~5 $4,215
Daly City $4,la, Gitro~\1 $4,2fi2
Morgan Hill $4,176 Palo Alt • ., 54,316
Bv,:ding;.me $01,182 Hillsoofcugh $4,329
San Mauo CQUll.ty 54.183 Me.t1ioPark M,347
Avetage $4,120 A\>eral;': ~4,28a
3rd Santa Clara County $4,3511 4th Ml'l\l.n~ir; ·~·lew $4,600
llelml'lnt $4,39-5 FO$t.erCit)' $4,643
San Meteo $4,411 Milpltas $4,70[
Sal! Carlo$. $4,42< San Bnmo k,'i12
Sou.th S.n Fra:'lrixo $4,427 San Jc$t $4,120
ReO "'m City $4,598 Cal'Jlpbe!l $4,739
Ave-ra.ge $4,436 A~'E:";ige $4,686
East Palo Alto SS.310
lu Quartile Average $4,120
Percentae-e tnerea$e to l'eacb Av<erage 24A8~
Exhibit l)
Ten Year East Palo Alto General Fund Increnses(pwductions)
KEVEf'oI\ll::S w Ih",urT;'Ijj' 1(.,1'<1"""" , r-U ... i¥.n'tv(;'"~ .... (;"1",,,.), llit 1 Suhhllhl
lalGr ~d.,I!~ 'I'II1M I'an.:.t 1.,U"r Jf{lftl. .. ~~ ... " N.,jlhlwlrhMd 11".· .. rNn!!
Y,,_r ~IIIII. _.sy~l .. m~_ 21!~~1 t~I'lin .. ltctnJl p.l3!t !r!tall", ~-~---C'FM~ _...l!!!~~~
19.,2·9:1 .. . " ." ... ~, .. .. .. '0
1900·94, .. '" ." (1;117,110(1) •• .j
$0 .. "tl7,HHIJI
11l~·9fi f'ttOO,OOOI ." J47 11 \J\11i ($II.7,(I(\(1I ,m,\lW al'olJl),(1I1IJ .' .,' S27I.r.lfi
lY"~.'fI 11900,0(11) M2,r,IHI ,hli:t,17:j 1$11",/11"-11 '2fit.inh Ultl.OUIl ~, ~, S.'''!I!I,1I7:1
1~-91 ("00,11001 ff"I.:ntl ,117'1,1f," l$l;1.m~l) $lI'10/.U" 'Milil,2t)11 $71+1/>IIU OJ ~1~j4:1:'~2
111't1·1I1l ''''1)9,0001 f.!lH,r".7 '1I!1~.lli'l 1'111,11'1111 $27ti,1t14 11i31l,fln" $MfI:l,;'I\U t:IW,:lHI f" ,7:111,r.llll
IInM·mI ~"OO,Oool "II,WI! 'o'I\;I,14n \'1)",11111) .2It1,4;12 ,r>4I,2UI .8Ui,;JlfI $:1.61,119 f.1,7!ll,r~1II
19!11.00 I.OO,d4'Io) M:l,(II~. t.l!lrl,U;2 ISiI7,lllkll '1131'.011.1 "",,,'.I,nf" '~\I\,lIl1 I.1M,081 SI,IUII),n2t.
2000..{J1 (POO,OOOI $.114,1"" ,'1/;7,:.onfl .'m ,OliO) l29l1,M2 $1kI:t,OfIl "",'oI"I~ ~fl.t."'l. $\ ~1'r',~I''l
2001·02 I~l $!I~-.......1J.1UI1::1 \JI}.!11f"11J, l1!t~ 1§:'4.;:lf3 ~ft9,"''' t;!:tl#IJ!':I 1.1 'HI'I JII2
TUl'AL '$i,iOO.QO~n "'1'J,I)I~ .a,4I1MSlII ''''Il~(J(II)1 fl.lSl,'''' J4,Jll.'" "1M., ... , .... 17l.OOO tll.MII,ton
All RI\lfW.t .... d ron IIN2 dolla"
All ",nnu~ .,.. " ..... med In inrre ... Z'J, po .. ,. .....
HnLol ... nn"a h.Md "". ",.,m f"IIllI of'Qr ........ and yluly in.1_ .... ,,(:1'1., ... ilh ~ ...... ,"~"q rlOt,U", , .. , '1l1af 'linn 1!\~''',",,,fl .. ,
" ":
:.',
'4,"; ~ . I'.
f I .... 'rl",. ~· .. n , ,-,
It.:M·>net TOTAl_
~~--'''EVENlJ~.
.n to
'~,.4!KI,(lOU '2,:\.\.1,1'JOO
." '2"',615
S2.41~n,lIlI'" '7.on~"7:J .' ",:\4:\,:\4':11
'" ",7.'1Il,4AII
'" ",'7.'7,tl:lln
." , 1,II$I.I17n
." ",":1,1111
$()~~-
"',l\1'li),000 .... Iy.ld
111121't"1
0
0
-
,,' ',', ,.\,
'\
" ~
"
,.
>,'
,.