Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout43- Council Office -CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION �O From: Councilman Jerry M. Devlin, Fifth Ward Subject: Assessment District Election Issue Dept: Council Office Date: May 10 1996 COPY Synopsis of Previous Council Action: July 1994 - Mayor & Council continued and increased Assessment District 994. Recommended Motion: To discuss and take possible action to place an item on the November 1996 ballot that would request an advisory vote of the public supporting a $9 increase to the current assessment for Assessment District #994 . Si nature Contact Person: Councilman Jerry Devlin Phone: 5278 Supporting Data Attached: Yes Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct.No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: Police Ad Hoc Committee recommended, on May 7, 1996, that this item go to the full Council on May 20, 1996. ao'9� AGENDA ITEM NO. V3 C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N O INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Ad Hoc Committee Members FROM: Jerr lin, Ad Hoc Committee Chairman SUBJECT: Assessment District 994 - Proposed Ballot Question Advisory DATE: May 6, 1996 COPIES : In 1990 the City adopted an Assessment District for Street Lighting and Street Sweeping in order to raise funds to increase Police Department staffing by 48 positions . In 1994 the Assessment District was increased to provide matching funds in order to take advantage of a Federal grant for an additional 17 police officers. The current assessment does not exceed $65 per year for each single family home. Both the grant funding and the Assessment District expire in June of 1997 . The Council can extend and/or increase the Assessment District by a 5/7ths vote in June of 1997 . However, before considering this increase, I believe the Council should place the measure on the ballot to receive an indication from the voters if they would support an increase in the assessment fee of approximately $9 per parcel in order to retain nine positions which will otherwise be lost when grant funding expires in June of 1997. The Police Department currently has a total of 286 sworn officer positions . Industry standards (POST Standards) dictate that maximum effectiveness of police resources is achieved at the point wherein each officer on patrol can dedicate 33% of their time to proactive patrol . Currently calls for service limit proactive patrol time of less than 18% per officer. A comprehensive computer analysis performed by the Police Department indicates that in order to meet industry standards of 33% proactive patrol time, the City must add positions to patrol . The loss of nine positions would increase the current deficiency. A plan is being developed to fund the "phase in" hiring of additional officers . But our current number of officers and current level of funding must be maintained in order to be eligible to receive funding consideration. This funding opportunity has a very narrow window of opportunity which will expire before the November election. While it is necessary to maintain the current Police positions and level of funding, the Mayor and Council, in July of 1994 , committed to an election on the Assessment District issue . It is suggested that the Council seek guidance from the public through an advisory vote in November. The following (or similar) language is suggested: "Would you support an increase in the current assessment, (District #994) which funds police personnel, by no more than $9 per parcel, in order to retain nine police officer positions which will lose grant funding in June 1997. 11 (yes or no) The Citywide survey conducted recently by the Police Strategic Plan Task Force indicates that a majority of those responding were willing to pay more in order to increase the number of Police officers in the community. Before the City expends the resources to do the engineering, surveys and etc. , it might be prudent to ask our citizenry if they would support such a Police Assessment District . The following (or similar) language is suggested: Would you support increases in the current Assessment District #994 to fund an increase in the number of police officers to allow for a 33% Proactive Patrol? (yes or no) AND/OR Would you support an ad valorem tax measure to fund additional police positions if placed on the ballot for approval? (yes or no) I ask that we consider these proposals and others which might soon be proposed. I believe that we will need to meet again soon in order to formulate recommendations to the entire Council .