The URL can be used to link to this page

10/21/1996 CONF MTG - 4863� � CffY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM A (UPPER LEVEL) 1. East River Road Improvement Proj ect. 2. Code Enforcement Procedures and Update. 3. Right-of Way Ordinance and Franchise Fees. 4. City Street Reconstruction Program. 5. Twelve Hour Shift Proposal. MEMORANDUM PLANNING DIVISION DATE: October 18, 1996 TO: William Burns, City Manager ,�� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Kurt Jensen-Schneider, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Procedures and Update In preparation for the October 21, 199b Council conference meeting, staff has prepared the fo(lowing Code Enforcement information. This review will provide an update of 1996 code enforcement activities, provide the Council with an overview of the code administration process, and will discuss the implementation of the 1997 goal and objective to complete a systematic inspection of 50% of the City. 1996 Code Enforcement Activitv There have been many Code Enforcement victories in 1996. In one neighborhood, neighbors looked at a half sided, multi-colored home for many years. Across the street, a neighbors garage began to take on that same unfinished appearance. Thanks to the code enforcement process, neighbors now look at the home which is completely sided, painted and fit with new windows and across the street, the garage has been sided and painted as well. In another neighborhood, more than a dozen inoperable vehicles were either repaired by their owners, placed in proper storage, or towed from site. In yet another neighborhood, a new scattered site home stands on a site where Kurt Jenson -Schneider investi�ated and revealed code enforcement violations so numerous that the City Housing Coordinator was contacted and an HRA purchase was consummated a short time later. To provide a numeric sense of code impact in the community, staff has prepared the following statistical summary. Vehicle Complaints 110 Outside Storage 139 Vision Safety 5 Weed 48 Pool 3 Home Occupation j p William W. Burns October 17, 1996 PAGE 2 Erosion 4 Solid Waste 66 Improper Parking 67 "For Sale" Display 12 Animal Ordinance 3 Antennae Height 1 Curb Cut 1 Erosion 4 Odor 1 Fence 7 Secure Property 3 Noise l License 2 Ice/Snow Sidewalk 2 Sign 31 TOTAL 516 Cases In 1996, 89% of all code issues were resolved upon first notification , 11 % required second notification , and 4%(included in 11 % second notice figure) required implementation of the citation process. Because of the recent junk vehicle ordinance adoption, the nuisance abatement process has been used less in 1996 than in 1995. Most property owners comply after the first notification so the nuisance abatement process has been reserved for repeat or recalcitrant offenders. Staff has increased cross training efforts with other departments (Community Service Officers, Fire Department, Rental Housing). Community Service Officers have assisted with sign code enforcement and provide incident reports on other code issues, the fire department conducted a valuable survey of unimproved driveway properties, and the rental inspection division continues to jointly investigate code violations at rental property locations. The code enforcement staff is currently assisting the rental inspection division with the review of approximately 400 rental license renewal applications. Innovations in the Process (1996) Placcard Process: With the adoption of the new junk vehicle placcarding process, the City has taken an aggressive approach to ridding the community of junk and inoperable vehicles. The following junk vehicle statistics have been gathered: Total number of placcards posted: 68 (100%) Total number of vehicles removed by owners or placed in operable condition: 59 (87%) Total number of vehicles towed: 6(9%) William W. Burns October 17, 1996 PAGE 3 Total number of vehicles pending (within 5-day grace) 3(4%) Code Administration The code enforcement process involves a series of steps originating with a complaint and ending with compliance. The first notification consists of a standard form letter that is meant to be a friendly and educational notice (see attached letter). Outlined in the letter is the necessary educational information about the city code requirement and the conective steps necessary to gain compliance. Staff has found that residents and business owners generally want to comply and are very cooperative once they have been notified. A majority of code issues are resolved within the 15 day compliance/ re-inspection period. The second (final) notification consists of a letter that once again outlines the violation. This notice is more stern and alerts the violator of the legal implications of non- compliance (see attached letter). All land use/nuisance violations are subject to a misdemeanor citation. If a citation is issued, an arraignment date is established at which time the violator can plead guilty or not guilty. If a guilty plea is entered, the judge will often times take the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney to determine a sentence. The maximum sentence for one misdemeanor citation is a$700 fine and 90 days in jail. The typical sentence includes: 1. A fine to help defray the cost of prosecution ($100-$300) 2. A court administered compliance date to bring the property into compliance. 3. A probationary period with stayed jail time and/or fines should a same or similar violation occur within the ne� year. If a plea of "not guilty" is entered, the court proceeds by scheduling pre-trial hearings. Pretrial hearings involve a face to face meeting between the city's prosecuting attorney, a county judge, and the person in violation. Because a guilty plea has not been entered at this time, the opportunity for the violator to proceed with a trial by jury or trial by judge is offered. The pre-trial hearing is also a place where the case can be settled. It is not unusual for the judge to assess a fine and administer a court established compliance date to allow the property owner additional time to comply. The court will monitor the conditions on the site and verify that compliance has been achieved. Should issues remain, additional pretrial hearings can be scheduled, or the case can simply go to trial. Although a code enforcement case has not gone to trial in the past year (11 cases have been resolved through issuance of a citation and early court proceedings), staff anticipates the potential for two trials before year's end. In a trial situation, consistency of enforcement, and the enforcement process will be under court scrutiny. Staff prides itself on an aggressive, educational, consistent process. William W. Burns October 17, 1996 PAGE 4 Svstematic Code Enforcement Histor� In 1990, the Council authorized staff to initiate a systematic code enforcement program where the City was divided into twelve areas for inspection. An area was inspected as time became available since a high volume of complaints were received during the spring and summer seasons. Approximately three and a half areas (southeast part of the City plus Melody Manor and the Onaway Addition) were inspected through 1994. Since 1994, staff has been unable to do systematic enforcement because of other priorities. For example, the large commercial vehicle ordinance originated as a resident complaint and resulted in a lengthy process. Although a worthwhile issue to be resolved, it represents how staff time can be redirected to other "hot" cases. Another example are the three ordinances which were adopted in 1996 (gravel driveway, junk vehicle, and nuisance abatement). Again, the ordinances are needed but time is taken away from inspection. 1997 Goal and Obiective - Svstematic Enforcement The City Council, as part of its 1996 planning retreat in February, identified code enforcement ("no junk cars or weeds") as a high priority. In response, the Community Development Department proposed a 1997 goal to systematically sweep 50% of the residential lots in the city. In order to accomplish the goal, the Code Enforcement Officer will have to team with other staff in the Community Development Department, the Police Department's Community Resource Officers and Community Service Officers, and possibly other departments such as Fire/Rental Inspection Department. Routine complaint calls will have to be handled separately until the systematic program has reached the point where complaint calls begin to disappear. Another idea proposed is to use the newsletter to educate the residents on a variety of code issues prior to the initiation of the inspections. The areas to be inspected will be determined after analysis has occurred as to where the highest incidents of complaints have occurred in 1996. Through this process, the volume of code cases receiving attention will increase dramatically and the community's awareness of code requirements will climb. It is our goal to dramatically decrease, or even eliminate call-in complaints. Staff believes the increased enforcement, increased public awareness, and increased emphasis in an uninterrupted process of enforcement will bring us to that point. KJS:kjs M-96-493 . . _ C�� OF FRlDLE.Y FRID�EY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N_E_ FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(6121571-3450 • FAX (612) 57l-1287 March 22, 1996 RE: First Notice of Noncompliance at 6070 6"' St. NE., Fridley_ Dear Mr:� The City of Fridley has established a City Code for the purpose of promofing a pleasant and attractive suburban environment. A recent inspection of the property at 6070 6th St. N.E. revealed that not all Code requirements are presently being met. Listed below is an item which does nof comply with the City Code: Fridley City Code requires that all vehicles must be currently licensed/street operable and kept on a hardsu�face parking area if they are stored outside. I observed two vehiGes at this locatio� which do not meet all of these requirements. Your prompt atte�tion in correcting this situation would greatty assist us in helping make Fridley a bet�er place to live. An inspection wili be conducted on o� sho�tly after Apri! 6, 1996 to determine compliance. Ify ouu have questions or would like to discuss this violation, please contac# me a# 572- 3595. Thank you for your cooperation! Since�ely, Ku�t Jensen-Schneider Code Enforcement Officer KJS:kjs C E-96-8s - �►, . ::;: &�:c:�: '"-";� _ .- ._..:... �.�;.;;� s.� �. ,._; , C[TY OF FRlDLEY FRIDL6Y MUN[CtPALCENTER • G431 UNIVERSITI' AVG. N.E_ FRIDL£Y, yt\ ii.3;' •�(,I?l i71-34ip • FAX (612) 571-1?2{7 August 12, 1996 RE: Finai Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridiey City Code at 4875 - 3rd Street N.E. Dear Mr_��.. A second inspection of the property at 4875 - 3rd Street N.E. confirmed that the following item stiil does not comply with City Code: 1_ Fridley City Code reqUires that all vehicles m:ast be currently ficensed, street . operable, and kept on a hard surface parking area if they are stored outside. ! observed an improperly parked vehi�le at this location. A final inspection.to determine compliance wi11 be conducted on or about August 19, 1996. You should arrange to complete an approved plan fof compliance before that date. Should this inspection confirm that this deficiency still exists, lega{ action wiif be approved. If corrective action cannot be compleied by this time, contact me to coordinate a schedule to complete this requirement. If you have any questions �egarding this matter, please contact me at the Fridley Municipal Center, 572-3595. Sincerely, Kurt Jensen-Schneider Code Enforcement Officer KJS:Is C E-96-278 ► - i ;, , ; . j � .. � _ '.1 i . i , � � j � � I i i . � _ i i i � :, ' "�`�--�' 1990 CODE ENFORCEME!l�TT - DISTRICT DESIGNAT'�1S � � M� Memo to: William W. Burns, City Manager �n1� From: John Flora, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Richard Pribyl, Finance Director/City Treasurer William Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager Subject: Right-of-Way Ordinance and Franchise Fees Date: October 16, 1996 The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the development of new telecommunications technologies, the deregulation of utilities and telephone companies, the prospect of retail wheeling, the anticipated decline of local government aids, and the prospect of a shift from tax capacity to market value as the basis for property tax levies - all these developments make it imperative for the City to review the management of the City's rights-of-way and the fees charged for their use or disruption. The City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM) has prepared a model right-of- way ordinance in cooperation with the League of Minnesota Cities' (LMC) Right-of- Way Task Force. In addition to fees for recouping the cost of the accelerated depreciation of the right-of-way (degradation fee) and the inconvenience caused by the closure of a street, sidewalk, or alley (obstruction fee), the model ordinance also imposes an occupancy fee to recover the rental value of the City's property and the costs associated with the development and maintenance of accurate records. John Flora has proposed a slightly different model for a right-of-way excavation permit. The fee would be calculated on the basis of four elements: 1. Occupancy 2. Excavation 3. Degradation 4. Obstruction The question is: Should the City adopt the model right-of-way ordinance, and if so when? We recommend that the City enact a franchise ordinance for NSP as soon as possible. John Flora and Bill Hunt have a meeting scheduled with a representative of NSP for Wednesday, October 23. Once the franchise ordinance with NSP is in place we recommend that the City adopt the model right-of-way ordinance, provided that it is clear that the occupancy fee 0 provisions do not apply to public utility companies which have a franchise with the City, i. e. electrical (NSP), gas (Minnegasco), and cable television (Paragon). This could be done by amendments to Chapter 11 of the City Code on fees. The occupancy fee would apply only to new construction, not to lines that are already in place. It would apply to new installations by telephone companies, new telecommunications companies such as digital personal communications services, and private companies who are making use of the rights-of-way, e.g. a company which is setting up an internal communications system by connecting its various locations with fiber optic cable. The Council should be aware that there is some risk in this approach. US West and its competitors for local telephone service will not take kindly to an occupancy fee. US West and the Minnesota Telephone Association (MTA) are aggressively pushing the Redwood Falls case and are mounting a state-wide publicity campaign. If the City attempts to impose an occupancy fee there is a possibility, even a likelihood, that the City will be sued. On the other hand, it is difficult to draft language in the right-of-way ordinance which would exempt telephone companies from the occupancy fee for the time being without, in effAct, exempting them permanently. There should be little objection to the degradation and obstruction fees. The City already has in place an excavation fee for cuts into the right-of-way, and public opinion is favorable to the approach of recovering true costs. CEAM has come up with a concept for determining the costs of disruption and degradation which would be similar in all cities which adopt the model ordinance. Even US West and the Minnesota Telephone Association acknowledge that "Cities can require telephone companies to obtain permits to do construction on rights-of-way. Current state law requires telephone companies to restore the property to the same or better condition than when construction began." (September 25, 1996, letter from Michael Nowick, Executive Secretary - Treasurer, Minnesota Telephone Association, to Mayor William Nee.) On a separate and somewhat parallel track, we recommend working toward a franchise fee with NSP and Minnegasco. There is clear statutory authority to impose a franchise fee on the electric and gas utilities, and several Minnesota cities (notably our neighbors Minneapolis, Coon Rapids, and Mounds View) have done so. The matter is not so clear for telephone companies and for other telecommunications providers if they are equated in law with telephone companies. This issue will be addressed in court, before the Public Utilities Commission, and at the 1997 session of the Minnesota State Legislature. Also, we need to monitor the experience of St. Paul and Minneapolis if they pass an occupancy fee for new users of the rights-of-way. (They already have franchise fees for the electric and gas utilities.) 2 We recommend that the City take the following steps toward the eventual passage of a comprehensive right-of-way ordinance: Proceed to negotiate a franchise ordinance with ordinance should contain language that stat required to pay a franchise iee in a manner separate ordinance. Use the SRA/LMC Unifor the term extend through June 30, 2003, to c franchise with Minnegasco. NSP as soon as possible. The �s that the company mav be �nd at a rate prescribed by a � Electric Franchise, and have �incide with the City's current 2. As soon as reasonably possible after that enact the model right-of-way ordinance making it clear that the occupancy fee provisions do not apply to franchised public utilities. 3. Work through the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) to get as many of its members as possible to negotiate jointly with Minnegasco and NSP to establish franchise fees. The City of Fridley is already a member of the SRA, and some other member cities have expressed interest in a franchise fee. The interested cities would probably have to share the costs of hiring the SRA Attorney, James Strommen, to coordinate the negotiations with the utility companies. John Flora will work to get this item on the agenda of the January meeting of the SRA. 4. Once an agreement the utility companies campaign to explain they will be used for. several years ago. on franchise fees has been negotiated with officials from , each city should mount an intensive public information what franchise fees are, why they are needed, and what Mounds View has given us copies of materials they used 5. At the appropriate time conduct the required public hearings and enact franchise fee ordinances with NSP and Minnegasco. 6. While the above steps are being taken monitor developments in the legislature, the courts, the Public Utilities Commission, the FCC, and other cities, especially Minneapolis and St. Paul. c: Frederic W. Knaak, City Attorney 3 City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager ��J FROM: John G. Florai Public Works Director DATE: SUBJECT: October 15, 1996 City Street Reconstruction Program PW96-229 With the redesignation and then approval of our State Aid system, we could, if the Council desires, petition the Commissioner of Transportation to utilize our State Aid funds off system. No other city has attempted this to date, but the procedures are allowed within the state aid rules. The prior memorandum on this subject used obsolete data. Based upon our most recent data, and an attempt to consolidate work for maximum cost effectiveness, a revised scenario of streets is provided. The overall concept remains in upgrading our asphalt bermed streets with concrete curb and gutter for improved storm water flow. We also are focusing the work on those streets that are rated low in our evaluation process. Finally, we are attempting to maintain a $500,000 annual program within a given neighborhood. I have suggested for the first phase Area A: as these streets are scheduled for sealcoating in 1997. 57�a Avenue 3rd Street Washington Street Jefferson Street 58th Avenue 57th Avenue Madison Street Siverts Lane Pierce Street Lucia Lane 2nd to 2� Street 45th to 46th Avenue 58th to 59th Avenue 57th to 59th Avenue 7th Street to Jefferson 7th Street - Jefferson 53� Ave to Cheri Lane 69th to 600 feet South Mississippi to 66th Ave 68th Place south 200 ft ESTIMATED COST: $498,000 October 17, 1996 Page 2 The remaining areas are flexible, but I've tried to schedule them into our resurfacing program and rotating them annually by ward. AxEA B: AxEA C: AxEA D: AREA E: ABEA F: Bellaire Way Pearson Way Firwood Way Craigbrook Way Stonybrook Way Craig Way Lyric Lane Tempo Terrace Melody Dr Concerto CV Memory Lane Ballet Blvd Skywood Court Skywood Lane Taylor Street Fillmore Street Pierce Street Buchanan Street Lincoln Street Hackman Ave Hackman Circle Tennison Drive Rice Creek Way 67th Way 66� Way 66th Way 65�a Way Hickory St ESTIMATED COST: $426,000 Alden to Pearson East River Rd to Firwood Pearson to 79th Way Alden to East River Rd Alden to East River Rd East River Rd to East River Rd 73rd to Ballet 73rd to Ballet 73rd to Ballet 73rd to Ballet 73rd to Ballet Lyric Lane to Memory ESTIMATED COST: $500,000 ESTIMATED COST: $456,000 Skywood to cul-de-sac Matterhorn to cul-de-sac 52nd Avenue to cul-de-sac 53rd south 53rd Avenue to cul-de-sac Columbia Heights city limits to 53rd Ave Buchanan to 53rd Ave ESTIMATED COST: $321,Q00 Polk Street to Tennison Drive Hackman Ave to Hackman Ave Hackman to cul-de-sac ESTIMATED COST: $540,000 East River Rd to Ashton Ave Rice Creek Way to Ashton Rice Creek Way to Ashton Ashton ta Hickory Ashton to Hickory Mississippi St to 65�a Way October 17, 1996 Page 3 AxEA G: A&EA H: AxEA I: Hickory St Ashton Ave Pandora Overton Dr. Able Street Jefferson Washington Oakley Woody Lane Hillcrest Dr Gardena Lane Gardena Circle 69th Avenue 69th Place Rice Creek Blvd University West Ser. Dr Rickard Rd Talmadge Way 65� Way to Rice Creek Way 65� Way to Rice Creek Way ESTIMATED COST: $442,300 68th to Monroe 68th to Monroe Overton to Rice Creek Terrace Madison to 210 ft south 68th to Madison 68th to Rice Creek Terrace ESTIMATED COST: $409,000 Gardena to Hillcrest Drive Central to Woody Ln Gardena to Woody Ln Gardena to cul-de-sac ESTIMATED COST: �475,000 University West Service Dr to Rice Creek Blvd Rice Creek Blvd to 69th Ave 69th Avenue to University West Service Dr 69th Avenue to Rice Creek Blvd East River Rd to Alden Way West cul-de-sac to east cul-de-sac The attached map identifies these streets. Recommend the City Council consider this concept so that we may attempt to schedule the necessary public meetings to proceed with an orderly street reconstruction program. These streets will be upgraded with concrete curb and gutter. An issue to be decided is whether the street width should be measured face-of-curb to face-of-curb and should the curb be added to the street width or cut into the surface. The appropriate frontage properties would be assessed based upon the annual street curb and gutter costs established for the particular year. Recommend the City Council decide whether we should add concrete curbing to the existing street or cut it into the existing surface (32 vs 30 feet). JGF:cz Attachment I �_ ___ . ` �` 1 . - _ _�� r_..... .�__ , 1 __�, ♦ . ' y ' 6 �i- .0 -�-�-�"t� - t�TY Of FRIDLEf -� � �� ;.R� �. � � �,p-_ ..,.. �ou. ..�.. ` -_ WTINCa I $C11001 . ��;' ,�:,i,.; �: � �� _ _ - ... __ � ,., OLSiWCTS _ dST1iIC'fS � ;`° . ,.�! �,?i;j ,� _'� ��' 4'� V�„t: °,•? •i=�' ��E ....�.- _ --- � A�`'i =�� F`�`,J ;��'a�� I fpl ._^. _ _ -- �- r�� !__ A , � IL l_ �� _�r -- � x .-.. I� ; . = — �--� )� '�. �';: R � t .. - 1—. � ,"` - _ ��O' °.,' �--�I� � ' _ .. '._ _ .~� ' �yL - � �� ' _ ' _ � �__ � �� r� i \�: � � ! �� - " — � .� _ � ��,�f� t ',�,! ��—�� ' 1n °— _ B • � '� i �'I �' I ....... - - e \, � �: • �`��r:;, a � � r _"" � "/ ;o .� �g . T - ; . ( J6 � 1 � W ., . L _ ,�� ' \ �• r - � - - � ' � :li �l� ^ �- i �titi Kcle . , . -.� -.� L11 � � i �� — ��i — _ • = --� - _ ��1I b.� --- i ! — I {I - - 7�6 _ I�--, C� �.ir— L! n n I[� I �- � •y \ - - _ • ��' —� i ° 'i L i C tl =_ �� .'- -- � � €�1�.[��J _:c: . •.e 1 '�� _ E � � t'� �!'�'. � ,a, � � � � ,�� - — J�. � _— _ _ .T �; - -- . : ,�,��—� � _—. _ � � � � � :,��■*��; � I � a ' �� i — I=-- — � �f .._._. � . o l - _ _ _ � �' o , °� � � �� E�- � �` -,��I �€ �� -- � � �� '� I � I " � � �� . .'�'��i� 4 � �� . ' f � ' �� J� ^IL a�� 1��~ . a ��' S �T�� '�1�+/ � r� � °v � S ' k . m L ,� � ( Fo �y e - � �-:1 r _ �� _ I� //., I�� ji � '�� -.,� �--'- ;. . �\ _ - � � ■ �,.�7� - � � ��.'�ia �r I'� . I �`� �. � J. �_- , : �i .>` '��,�J�i�` .� i� � �' ■. �, � - � — ! -'-�k i j''=7� r� � � _ p t. _ �/ . f � ' �`y� � -��_ [� = _ .�,�� ' �CJ ' c°G r A �, s r!� i > _ �.a �...�i . -_ -.� „�i i� � . . 1I � ."�i .s. �-- �� ~ � - _ � tiG�4, J � , -� �� , ` �, I � _ i � _ / _. �''/7 f > � 'O -�.I�• , L� �i / L�R..i . � I u mjjj777"""''' �j 1 �I�� I � Yco E wr ji � � ��It. � ...1.11�L1� iJ�F. : . p/ r./. Y..: . C `� ��`�� 1��11�L1' 00 ., �,f ,�' ,�.- ,-a:�.:, _ - � ,:-�;1'- -�; _`-� o� � - ��: / �L rV. ��i' ';I'- - � I . � � �._ � �%' !�—_.-� =-_�'�� E� _ rr °'-t.-� //.' y!��\ �'� �:ir1,I -') �� Ii M . / � - -� - - � 1.,�`. `\ =�,J _ J.: ^ � � I. ,.� . _ -,a � � _ � _ :�� , ; � � �� ,�r � �.%�'` . �� j_ i� � I i� = ; - Ir � � . ��'��I• / • r� . .. _n I ', , . ---- ' , n� � �.f � :>>� - ��:�__-- � ;�_ �i � �J{l�• _ _" I.,� : l.� E �;[�� " �. +�j� �. � I _ ` � � ---e � .��n �� 1 <<7'�� I. -��. - .v.. " ot. I I " } ' � � � � rua� ; ,�a.,{ -_�� - _ -.- - __ - _ _ , ;�, .-- < < -�-��,� � _- == - -� - _ = -_ __. -� �:� �� ,� � � — - : . J \ "�? \� I� � � - '� ._:. .. �- � J o. 1 �\� - - i - "'1;� 1�� c'c'�. si .�_ _ - _ . N ,`�� I� _ i J.� == - _ - �= . —�.—...— N�`i v ��\ ' _ , ,1. i _� M � � .�...._ - . �a . .. = �� . . ` �,� _ _ � .... � � _ V ' 2. ` . K � i ^�;�;-f� �_ I--� _ -... .. � r�.✓_ :�?'. _ �-_ C'L-�,y K. I��j;)� � _ _ iy:.�Y `::"s a � ' __' ' � ' N � .. j�� ,n,,; — �_ ___ �` �--:.:.� _= -- _ _ ==- ��`"_' - - I «<,`�,i i''`, _Iy4Kr - _ � : ., __ .. _ -� � 3_- . `r`° N /� S�- �- - � ec. .. _ _ „ n,��l'� i -- �- - __• •. .�..o�e+ � � ��t� l�= — STREET MAP—CITY OF .,.. - '-- � � / •'�, =) -_ , FRIDLEY = .... �� _W _ �� :, L - � _ --..d:�..�-- - �= =a p ..—__. ___�.y _�.___ ____..__ �..,....-........_.__.. W-_-_ ___- ._�. _n: � , . � S 6 /,%�4"�j `�a\�� - ��, �� :��. �� ;:�i i'►�, .:��,: Fridley Police Department Memorandum To: William W. Burns From: Dave Sallman Q Date: October 18, 19� Re: 12 Hour Shift Proposal On October 21�, at the City Council Conference Meeting, I would like to dis�uss a proposed change in the organization of the police department with the Council. Any organization that is required to provide coverage for 24 hours a day/365 days per year has an issue with scheduling. Scheduling shifts affects employees, health (especially as they age), their family life, etc. and all of these issues affect the morale of the employee. Schedules for shift employees have been extensively studied and many variations of schedules have been tried. In the past 10 years many organizations have been experimenting with 12 hour shifts for police officers (and others) based on some research from the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Rochester, Duluth, and Golden Va11ey are among a number of departments which have switched. Why 12 Hours? Any shift greater than 8 hours creates what is referred to as a Compressed Work Week (CWV� with the norm being a 40 hour/ 5 day work week. This is often viewed as a benefit for some businesses and employees. If your business includes a major startup and/or shutdown of machinery, etc. the fewer times that you have to do that and the more hours that you can run consecutively is a benefit. The same is true for the employee (fewer trips to work, longer weekends, etc.). Many businesses tried the 4 day work week/ 10 hour days (which does not work well if you have customers and require staffing during normal business hours). The problem with the CWW for shift work is that most of them are inefficient from the standpoint that you have too many employees scheduled at some times of the day and not enough at others. Sometimes this can be a benefit if the overlap is desired. The 12 Hour shift creates a situation which, from an efficiency standpoint, is neutral to the organization. There is no overlap of shifts and in fact it actually allows us to even out the scheduling (explained later). The same number of officers split into four teams working 12 hour shifts provides the same coverage as our current 3 shiftJ 8 hour days. Benefit to employee. The first question I asked when this was presented to me several years ago was why would anyone want to work a 12 hour work day on a regular basis (most of us do it but not daily). The answer gets back to the shifts. Shift work is very hard on the employee from the standpoint of sleep deprivation, personal schedules, families (cops were getting divorced at a 75% rate long before it became fashionable), and just general health. Experts on shiftwork advise that you just shouldn't do it if you don't have to. This will probably change with increased emphasis on health issues (smoking, drinking, exercise, diet, etc.) but the average police officer historically collects only a few years of pension checks (and this is with a relatively early retirement). The 12 hour shift provides the officer with: -a shorter work week (2 and 3 day weeks versus the current 4 and 5 day weeks) The advantage for this is that it provides for more breaks from the work week , especially when on nights. -26 weekends versus the current scheduled 8. This is a big issue from the standpoint of being able to do things with your family and friends (you aze off more often when they aze). -Ability to schedule their holidays. Most employees get an allotment of holidays (11 per year in Fridley). Shift workers typically work the holidays so theirs tend to be floating. Our current schedule (5/2/4/2) uses up eight holidays (assigned) per year to provide the average 40 hour work week. The 12 hour shift will provide the officer to schedule a1188 hours (11 x 8) of their holiday. -More days oi�per year. As noted previously a big benefit of a CWW is less number of days spent at work (Officers will still work an average 40 hour work week- same as other hourly employees. Benefit to City. The biggest benefit to the city is officer morale. Maintaining a positive morale is probably more important in police work than in any other occupation. Being a police officer has many intrinsic rewards (helping people, interesting work, etc.). It is also incredibly stressful. Police Officers are constantly dealing with the failures of our society, often times with no answers (child abuse, drugs, alcoholism, poverty, racism, domestic violence, etc.). People routinely state "I couldn't do your job" giving some inference of understanding, then turn around and complain about the officer. Officers do not deal with people in positive situations. If a police officer is there, something has gone wrong and somebody is having a bad day. This is why we are making the effort to place officers in positive situations (DARE, Community Oriented Policing, National Nght Out, etc.). Dealing with people in stressful situations all of the time takes more than just doing their job. It takes a level of commitment much geater than I or anyone else can dictate. I spend a fair amount of my time working on officer morale because it is important to the City that officers are positive in their citizen contacts (no matter what the situation). The news is full of stories on a regular basis where officer morale has broken down or is none�stent. Society as a whole appreciate police officers (note citizen surveys) but it can be very difficult on a case by case basis. The reason I am presenting this proposal is that it was requested by the officers. I do not manage the department by popular election but I modified the request to meet the department's needs and polled those officers (33) that would have to work the schedule. Over 90% were in favor of the proposal. I have never seen 90% agreement on any issue among the police officers in over 19 years. Over 90% approval is a strong indication of a potential for improving morale which will result in better relations with the citizens ( the officers already do a good job with this but there is always room for improvement). The other benefits to the City are smaller. Our current 3 tearn/rotating schedule creates highs and lows in scheduling. It is a mathematical issue with an odd number. There may be more employees scheduled on a Wednesday night in July or a Saturday night in January. The 12 hour shift will provide with the same number of officers scheduled every day of the year (we do regulate different shift minimums depending on the time of the year). The importance of consistency is important if someone is sick, injured , on vacation, or at training. There are days currently where if one officer is gone (training, sick, injured,) we pay overtime. The 12 hour shift should result in lower overtime expenditures. There are currently 3 shifts meaning that at the beginning of every shift there is a 15 minute (average) roll call. There are always officers monitoring the radio for calls but there is also time between shifts (checking out vehicles, equipment, filing reports, etc.) which takes away from the time that officers spend on the street. It is necessary preparation time, but generally unproductive. If there are only 2 shifts, this prep time occurs only 2 times a day instead of 3. If the preparation time (including roll call) is 20 minutes per day the 12 hour shift results in about 122 hours per scheduled officer of extra patrol time per year. If we average 4 officers (conservative estimate) scheduled per day there is a gain of 488 hours in patrol time per year. Another benefit of the proposal (more related to balancing shifts) is that we are going to weight (schedule) our shifts to provide additional officers to be scheduled at night. We do this by temporary changes (power shifts) currently but due to the team schedules it is somewhat sporadic (and incredibly unpopular with the officers due to changing their shifts around). The last obvious benefit is concerned with training, meetings with citizens for the Neighborhood Resource Officers, DARE assignments, etc. Because the officers work 12 hour days (7 to 7 was proposed) changin� their shifts to accommodate special situations is easy as there will be no breaks which ends up in us paying overtime. If an NRO works the day shift and there is a neighborhood meeting scheduled at 7 P.M. we can simply adjust the schedule (9 to 9). Currently an officer assigned to the day shift (7 to 3) would have to come back at 7 P.M. There are times that we still adjust the schedule but the 7 P.M. shift change creates a natural time to have meetings. If there were no benefits to the City whatsoever (I believe that there are as noted above), the other side is there are no negatives to the City. If you question the ability of people to work 12 hour workdays, I would submit that many of us (and yourselves) do it on a regular basis without the benefit of the CWW. The research from UNID and comments that I have received officers and administrators indicate that the benefits of the CWW far outweigh the fatigue factor of working 12 hours. They (administrators) have noted no loss in productivity (with the exception of the first month or so as employees adapt to the schedule) and state that even those that were initially against it turn around when they see the benefits. The reason that I am coming to the Council to discuss the scheduling issue (my suspicion is that you don't really care what schedule the officers work as long as it efficient and cost neutral) is that the scheduling requires a slight organizational change. We cunently have 4 sergeants (one investigative and 3 patrol) and 3 corporals. The corporals serve as supervisors when the sergeant is not working. The 12 hour schedule (I have attached a sample) would require promoting one of the corporals to sergeant. Depending on the year this could even be a cost saving move but it is not that simple. Sergeants base pay for 1996 is $53,531.88 and they aze exempt employees meaning that they receive no overtime pay (except when they work an e�ra duty job that is contracted through the department which is paid by the customer-usually a wedding dance, football game, etc.). Corporals are hourly and, depending upon their seniority, the base pay could vary but the pay for the corporal that would be promoted (based on the last promotional exam) will have a base pay of about $46,929 (assuming a 2% Union Contract settlement) for 1996. As noted the corporals receive time and one half for all overtime. Depending upon the year and the individual employee, corporals have in some past years, been the 2'� highest paid employee in the department when including the overtime. That was not the case in 1995 when there was an average difference of slightly less than $6,000 between the two positions. The sergeants and some of the corporals have sold their unused holidays in the past (They actually get a1188 hours of holiday). This practice will be discontinued under the 12 hour shifts and along with the projected savings in overtime I believe that there will actually be a savings to the city. As noted previously, the difference between the pay grades historically has been on an individual basis depending upon who is working the most extra duty employment. This proposal has been presented as a trial. We can measure overtime and employee costs at the end of 1997 and use that as a partial criteria for continuation. The exchange of the sergeant for the corporal can be changed back (reorganized back to the cunent situation) if need be (under Civil Service Rules the newly promoted sergeant could be unpromoted to corporal-the employee understands this). We can measure and compare productivity measures (I don't necessarily expect that this change will result in more traffic tags, arrests, etc. but it should not result in less). It will also be easy to determine if the citizens are not being treated as well. We do not have many citizen complaints cunently. If there is an increase, it will be noticeable. The union has been already been contacted and agreed that the necessary changes from days to hours are acceptable (officers will not receive 11 twelve hour holidays but 88 hours of holiday time, same cunent). As noted previously, scheduling is a constant issue for people required to work shift work. Based upon discussions with administrators from other departments (some who have been doing this since 1987) the 12 hour day may be one of those rare win-win situations in scheduling. I believe that there is very little risk to the City in trying the change, and there is a potential for a large gain. I look forward to addressing the proposal with the Council on October 21 �, 1996. Run Date: 9124/96 Schedule Run Time: 1:29a Wednesday, January 01, 1997 to Friday, January 31, 1997 Page: 1 `� ;" � � �� ' ' �� . � � �� !Y[ T�, ', F.. S - � �IYt � � ._E �Farr� ��y t�vai�`crir� . �, � ' ' ; � �, .'+� 5� "`� . i`. „ �' . 9 �t�: 'i'f- ��2 4� '�±� '��a 'N , .'�S ZQ Z't ��'2 Z� "�5 26 2'� .2� 29: � 31 �.. .. '�-. �. .. �,'��, � ,�,.E.,. <t Z � TEAM ONE ilam/7pm I i � I , � � I , � i � � i I � , i , A SGT A iA i A�A � A iA iA A �A j i i A A I ;A 'A A � A A ; 1 { { � ; i B ,OFFICER 1 A iA A iA A A iA A!A � j j A'A j jA iA A I A A, I I � ; � ' i i , � i �; I I I C iOFFICER 2 A�A A�A � A�A A j �A iA � I � A�A ; ,A A�A A A � ! � I I � � I � : I I D �OFFICER 3 A �A � A iA A A A j A'A i A A' ;A 'A A ; A A; � I i � i � I �� I�� I j I I I i i E OFFICER 4 A�A � A IA I i A'A A , �A A; A'A ; , ;A �A A ' A jA i , I � � � I; i , I i � ( � TEAM TWO I7am/7pm ; i ' � ! , � � ; , j I � ; i I i i �i j ; � j I i i � i I i A SGT IA �A 'A I �A iA I A A�; ; A iA A A IA j ! A IA A: �� i � I ' � ; i i I ! , I ; ; I '�� , B IOFFICER 1 I 'A iA A �I A iA � A IA i ; A�A !A �A iA � i A!A I � IA � � �� I � �� i � � i C OFFICER 2 j A A A A;A ' I i A IA j A IA A I ,A ;A � A'A !A j I I I i � i j � � I i i D ;OFFICER 3 � �A A A A�A '. A iA ! A A A �A �A � A A I I �A � i I � j � ; I � i E IOFFICER 4 � iA A A A A! � A �,A i �A A A � A A A IA I A i I I � i i I I � I � i POWER i7am/7 m I � ! ' I i p � � I i I. � I � I � � � I � X ��OFFICER A A;�q p q'; ; � p �q q, � � A;A A �A A A;A � I i I j , � � � � ; I � I i i TEAM THREE li7pm/7am i i � ; � i ; � '�, ; i � i I � � ! i I� i A SGT B;B I � B �,B I � B;B ig � B iB I i B'I�B j6 B B �B B I I I� � ' I I � '' I I I i B iOFFICER 1 B�B � B'IB � , B;B i6 � jB :B � i B �B � �� B B �B � �B B� ' I � i i � ' � I i i C IOFFICER 2 B IB � B �B B jg �B B;B ; � I B iB i i B B B i �B B', i i � i I � � i, � i I;; i D �OFFICER 3 B B i 'I I B'�,B I B B �IB � IB ;B �� , B'.,B i B IB �B ` B iB i � I i i E OFFICER4 B �B i B �B � B B,B � B B, ' B!B ; B i6 ;B i B iB � � i � i � '! � � I i! ! � � F �OFFICER 5 B'B I I I B IB B�B B � IB �B � I B;B 'i �B �B B � iB �B I II I I � � �' POWER �3pm/3am � i i � I� ; � I , , i ' i i ' � I I � I � I j � I�, �' � I i A CPL P P � P'iP I P''P '�P i P IP li P;P i '�, ',P 'P 'P � P iP i � � �� i � I � � , j ; B OFFICER P IP P�P � � P��P �P P'�P P;P � P P �P �P iP I I; � �! I I � ! � I I , � I TEAM FOUR I7pm/7am i i � ; I� � I� I� � � � � i I � A SGT !B f8 '�B � B B I B B i IB �B 'IB B IB i � B'B ' i B i � � � � � j I � � , I I B �OFFICER 1 B iB B 'B B ' �, B B ' 8 IB B j B'B i ! i B �B � i6 i i I i � I I � ' �I i � i � I i I i i I I � I C �OFFICER 2 � �B IB �B } �B B i � B B � �B �B I�B � �B i6 � � I, B B� � ��8 ! � ; i I ' i D ,OFFICER 3 i B IB iB IB IB , j B �IB ,B B I,B ,g Ig i g ig ' 1,g ! � � , i i i, i i ; ; E iOFFICER 4 � B jB �B � �B iB ', i B IB , 'B 'B ''',B ; i6 B i � I B iB ' I i6 i i � � �� , i � i F iOFFICER 5 i �B i6 �B � B B ' B,B i IB '�B ''IB �B B; ; ' B'B i IB I � I i I POWER 3pm/3am i ! � I � i ; � i ' � i I � i � � ; ��;�! ��'ji, !�i A ICPL I IP iP IP �P P i P �P P'P iP �P IP ' , , P'P , P ; i II i � ii I, �i I � I � I j I ' j I B IOFFICER 'I P!P �,P !I 'P P i P;P P'P IP �P ',P ' � ; P,P i iP � j � � j' I ; I i I � I