Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 11-26-2007 special agenda — reading text

c is likely to have a positive effect in discouraging future violations of the 46 c ordinance by the same offenders, for both physiological and psychological reasons, A decriminalized ordinance ( Le. assessing an administrative fine) eliminates incarceration as a possible consequence. Again, from a law enforcement perspective, this recommendation is directed toward revenue generation only and would not further impede the ability to complete the police mission, except as noted above, We will, of course, proceed in accordance with any Council decision regarding this matter, Recommendation # 38: Consider increasing the fees charged for: (1) City wrecker service, ( 2) Fingerprints, ( 3) Alarm permits, ( 4) False alarm response, 5) Taxi permits, ( 6) Records/Background checks, ( 7) Report copies, ( 8) Bike registration, ( 9) Parking services - fees/meters, and ( 10) Impound and storage fees. Comments regarding each suggested fee increase are provided below. 1. We have no City Wrecker, for which to charge fees - increase them, or Neither do we charge fees to private Wrecker Services operating in the City, except through business licensing. 2. We now charge $ 5. 00 to fingerprint members of the public on an inked c card. Recently, we permitted the Division of Financial Services to place an inkless fingerprint station at Police Headquarters. We are permitted to use that station for our own and public purposes, without cost, as long as we agree to charge only $ 4. 00 each for fingerprints thereon, when they are arranged by the Division, Last year we received $ 2,401. 00 in such fees. Currently, the Okaloosa County Sheriffs Office provides fingerprint services to citizens without charge 3. I peared before Council on August 14th ( for first reading) and August a~ 2St ( for second reading) regarding Ordinance number 1734, which amended Ordinance number 1667 concerning alarm permit fees, Council passed Ordinance number 1734 and, I believe, better served our citizens by eliminating registration and renewal fees for privately owned alarm systems. As stated in the presentation of Ordinance 1734, citizens ( resident and business) already pay extra for an alarm service. While they do so primarily for their own. safety and protection, it is also a benefit to the Police and Fire Departments, enabling better and quicker responses as well as improving the rate of criminal apprehension, To charge citizens a registration fee for a system they already pay fori which is not required, o and which benefits public safety, I believe is unfair and discourages 47 c' citizens from purchasing/ leasing alarm systems. I believe establishing/ increasing fees for alarm Dermits would be counter productive to the interests of our citizens and the Police Department. 4. In the 1990' s, the City had a fee for false alarm responses, Police staff recollections are that sometime in the late 90' s, those fees were eliminated. In 2005, Council enacted Ordinance 1667, again establishing fees for false alarms, in excess of three (3) per year. This is an appropriate way to address the issue. False alarm responses are costly, both in manpower and to the safety of citizens and officers, because they require an emergency response when it is unwarranted, False alarms, caused by weather conditions, are not billed. True false alarms generally occur because of owner/operator error or faulty equipment/maintenance. It is appropriate to charge for false alarms, to encourage remediation of either or both of these conditions, which then reduces reoccurrence, Currently the fees for false alarms calculated on a 12 month basis, are: 0- 3 no charge 4.- 6 25.00 each alarm c 7- 9 10 - or more 50. 00 each alarm 75, 00 each alarm Failure to register 100. 00 each alarm Last year, we billed for 480 false alarms - for a total of $ 1, 400.00 ( 11 locations had 4, 11 had 5, 4 had 6, 2 had 8, 1 had 9, and 1 had 14). An increase in the rates charged for false alarms would have no negative effect on the police mission and may increase revenues and/ or hasten the desired error remediation, 5. Any taxi permits, would be handled through business licensing by the Finance Department. Taxi driver~ are each permitted through the Police Department. Taxi driver permits are $ 15, 00 each, A review of the taxi permit revenue account shows that $ 840. 00 was received during Fiscal Year - 2007, 6. Records/ background checks are charged at $ 5. 00 each. $ 310. 00 was re.ceived during Fiscal Year - 2007 for this activity. 7. Florida Statute 119, 07 regulates what fee rates public agency records custodians may charge. FS 119. 07( 4)( a)( 1) authorizes the custodians to charge a fee of 15 cents for one ( 1) sided copies and 20 cents for two ( 2) sided copies. Additionally, FWBPD charges $ 2, 00 each for accident c repor:ts by mail. That fee was established because FS 321. 23 ( 2)( a) allows that fee for reports procured from DHSMV. Our charge mirrors that 48  fee, although the statute does not specifically address anyone other than I DHSMV. We received $ 1, 604, 00 for copies and record print-outs during Fiscal Year - 2007, 8. There is no City Ordinance requiring. bicycle The City fee. registration. charged for registering a bicycle, which can have benefits to the owner in terms of enhancing the likelihood that it wiJI be returned to the owner if lost or stolen, is $ 1. 00, $ 3. 00 was collected during Fiscal Year - 2007, 9, We have different fine amounts for the three ( 3) categories of parking violations, and an additional fee when violators are late in paying the fine, Handicapped violations are charged at $ 100. 00 Fire Lane/Zone violations are charged at $ 32. 00 All others parking violations are charged at $ 15. 00 A late fee of $ 15. 00 is charged, if the fine is not paid within seven ( 7) days 5, 826, 00 was collected during Fiscal Year - 2007 for parking violation fines. 10. The City Comprehensive Fee Schedule provides that impounded vehicle storage fees accrue at the rate of $10. 00 per day for seized or abandoned vehicles, beginning after 48 hours; the same per day fee applies for c vehicle storage of accident or evidentiary vehicles, beginning 5 days after notification to. remove the vehicle has been given to the owner, I was unable to determine the amount received during Fiscal Year - 2007, Conclusion: The authorized strength of sworn police officers was previously reduced from fifty- six 56) to fifty-three ( 53) regular officers. The current authorization level of fifty-five ( 55) results because there are two ( 2) designated CRA Officers, who are funded from the CRA Budget and who perform duties specific to the CRA District. I believe the authorized sworn strength of the Police Department is already at a minimal level. Statistical data and analysis, as well as competent police management, support this conclusion. Because of officer safety concerns, and the fact that it is absolutely imperative for the police to respond to all emergency situations, a reduction in the number of officers authorized for the Police Department could not be absorbed within the patrol divisions, Therefore, the only viable alternative would be to deplete the Community Policing Unit by the number of officers eliminated. This would result in the FWBPD reverting to a traditional policing style agency, and no longer being able to serve the public in other possibly community policing style, to which our citizens have become accustomed and c wen served. 49 c Recommendation: I respectfully request the Members of the Council give consideration to the information presented in explanation and support of the positions made herein and take no action to reduce the authorized strength of the Fort Walton Beach Police Department. I recognize there is politica[ and media pressure to the contrary, but I am hopeful that, after evaluating the statistical data, information, and explanations provided herein, that the Members of the Council will agree that a reduction in the number of police officers would be unwise and adversely affect public safety and service. Prepared and Respectfully Submitted by: w .: a~ Ted Litschauer, Police Chief L~ II /lfJ/ 2007 Date Reviewed and Concur: c Joyce Shanahan. City Manager I Date I 2007 Attachments: Footnotes: 1 Staff Report on Alternative Services Delivery, by John Hofstad, dated May 14, 2007. 2mm . . 3" Study of A1ternative Delivery Methodologies for City Services," Final Report, Management Advisory Group, Inc., dated September 18, 2007 - interchangeably referred to herein as: MAG Study Report, MAG Report, MAG Study, and/or the Study. c 5Q  QTY OF FORT WALTON BEACH MEMORANDUM Ci DA1E: November 5, 2007 TO: Joyce Shanahau, Gty Manager FROM: Jeff Peters, Parks & Recreation Director SUBJECT: Alternative Services Delivery Study BACKGROUND Recently the GtyCouncil was presented with an Altemative Services DeliveryStudyperfonned by the Management Advisory Group, Inc. MA G identified sixty two (62) recommendations for implementation for a citywide savings. Ot! DISCUSSION The study identified areas in the Parks and