HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/02/2010 10 Council Public Safety Committee Updated Reports • BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 1
For Meeting Of March 2, 2010
ITEM TITLE: Updated Reports from the Public Safety Committee
SUBMITTED BY: Deputy Police Chief Kelly Rosenow
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Deputy Chief Kelly Rosenow - 575 -6210
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
At the February 17, 2010 meeting of the Council Public Safety Committee, staff provided
reports to the committee members regarding the issues of School Resource Officer funding,
Red Light Traffic Safety Camera programs, and the Yakima Gang Free Initiative. The following
reports are updated from staff for information to the full Council.
Resolution Ordinance Other (Specify) Report
Contract Mail to (name and address):
Phone:
Funding Source
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: 4 City Manager
er q
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve as submitted.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Public Safety Committee recommends •
approval.
COUNCIL ACTION:
•
/ M /D A
• MEMORANDUM
March 2, 2010
TO: Honorable Micah Cawley, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FR: Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager
Sam Granato, Chief of Police
Cynthia Martinez, Assistant City Attorney
Michael Morales, Deputy Director CED
RE: Gang Free Initiative Update
Under the guidance of the Council Public Safety Committee, staff has prepared for
consideration of the City Council the attached proposal for an implementation
framework to set into motion the City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative. The proposal is
rooted in the five principles of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention's (OJJDP) comprehensive gang model, and is consistent with strategies
being initiated on a countywide basis as part of the Yakima County Comprehensive
0 Gang Model.
There are a number of gang related initiatives being pursued throughout Yakima
County. While laudable and certainly necessary as part of a regional strategy, these
efforts are not, nor can they be, focused solely on addressing the issues being
experienced in Yakima neighborhoods. The Public Safety Committee and City staff
have been monitoring these efforts and have determined that the best way in which to
address the problems in Yakima is direct City involvement focused on a City of Yakima
effort. This effort requires strong leadership and support from the City. To be effective,
the overall strategies employed must be consistent and to some degree coordinated
with other efforts around the county as this is the only way to ensure that adequate
resources are provided to support the project.
STAFF ASSIGNMENTS _
Understanding the need for staff support dedicated to the City anti -gang efforts, City
Manager Zais and Chief Granato recently tapped Lt. Mike Merryman to serve as the
City's primary liaison for the City's Gang Free Initiative. Lt. Merryman has developed
a broad and strong network of contacts throughout the city and the valley through his •
leadership in the community- oriented policing efforts of the City. ' His experience with a
variety of enforcement and community education activities are a good fit for the tasks
that lie ahead. In addition to his experience in patrol and drug or gang emphasis
• efforts, he serves as the YPD Public Information Officer and has worked with the
DARE, GREAT, and YPAL programs.
NEXT STEPS •
Following Council direction to formalize the structure and seek participation
commitments from community partner agencies, staff will prepare a formal budget and
resource allocation plan for Public Safety Committee review in April. Provided the plan
is financially and organizationally feasible, it is anticipated that the Public Safety
Committee would request formal adoption from the City Council in May.
•
s
• DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA GANG FREE INITIATIVE
Proposed Framework
SUGGESTED PROJECT GOAL:
Develop coordinated strategies designed to eliminate gang activity and crime within the City of
Yakima.
PREVENTION & INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
OBJECTIVES:
1. Empower people who live and /or work in Yakima target neighborhoods to take an active
role in crime intervention efforts by involving neighborhood businesses, churches, social
service organizations, schools, and other groups as an integral part of the community
policing effort.
2. Close down or remove the sites of chronic criminal activity from the targeted
neighborhoods.
• 3. Empower and educate families to remove gang members from gang activities.
4. Establish programs and activities for youth and families.
5. Develop and promote alternatives to gang membership.
6. Develop a strategy for reducing youth offender related crimes.
7. Work with media to educate community on gang graffiti related issues
SAMPLE OUTCOMES:
• Provide at least 250 referrals each year from law enforcement to various service
providers for youth and families in the high crime areas of the city.
• Establish 5 target neighborhood advisory groups, comprised of neighborhood residents,
to assist with implementation and sustainability.
• Reduce gang related crime by the end of Year 1 in Yakima.
• Reduction in number of active gangs and known gang members in Yakima.
• Reduction in number of graffiti incidents in Yakima.
• Establish block watch groups in each targeted neighborhood by the end of Year 1.
• Improved appearance of target neighborhoods.
• Increase the number of youth involved in prevention programs.
• Reduction of crimes against persons and property on an annual basis.
• Involve at least 200 target neighborhood residents, business owners and other
III stakeholders in community crime prevention activities by the end of Year 3.
1
•
TASKS: •
1. Collaborate with service providers to develop a comprehensive, ongoing menu of programs,
activities, and services for youth and families in target neighborhoods.
2. Provide a variety of non -sport activities in the city to enhance the self- esteem, self -
confidence, and self- respect of "at- risk" youth in the targeted high crime areas.
3. Develop and operate a referral network with children and shelter agencies.
4. Publicize and distribute phone numbers, locations, and office hours of youth and adult
services offered.
5. Meet with school officials on a monthly basis to identify alcohol, drug, and weapon trends or
problems and develop strategies to address them.
6. Develop a system of working closely with parents /guardians of students involved with
alcohol, drugs, or weapons.
7. Support the implementation of a mandatory out -of- school suspension program to offer
students structured activities for students suspended for alcohol, drugs, and /or weapons
possession or use. Programs to be implemented in community centers, schools, churches, and
non - profit organizations.
8. Work with Yakima School District to involve police officers in the schools instructing gang
and drug resistance programs.
9. Work with service organizations /agencies, school districts, residents, businesses, and other
service providers to increase participation in youth prevention activities.
10. Work with community groups, students, volunteers, and others to establish clean -up crews
to paint over graffiti, beautify neighborhoods, and to clean up high crime areas.
11. Publicize and encourage participation in youth and family related services through referrals
from law enforcement.
12. Work with schools, businesses, churches, service providers and other groups to develop
and implement prevention programs for "At- Risk" youth.
2
• SUPPRESSION STRATEGIES
OBJECTIVES:
Develop effective and coordinated strategies for reducing gang related crime in Yakima.
Arrest, prosecute, adjudicate, and supervise sentenced juvenile gang members.
SAMPLE OUTCOME MEASURES:
Increase arrests of repeated juvenile gang members by the end of Year 1.
Increase the number of subjects arrested for committing the crime of graffiti.
Reduce gang related crime by the end of Year 1.
Reduce number of active gangs.
Reduce number of known gang members.
TASKS:
1. Convene strategy sessions and meetings with representatives of the U.S. Attorney's office,
Yakima Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Probation Services, law enforcement, and others.
2. Coordinate and concentrate activities of Valley Law Enforcement, Federal Law Enforcement,
Juvenile Court, and Prosecutors Office, including the use of gang task force, local officers, and
confidential informants.
3. Work with U.S. Attorney, Yakima Prosecutor, and City Prosecutor Attorneys to prosecute
those arrested for gang related crimes.
4. Use audio and video surveillance to survey sites of gang activity.
fa 5. Work with City Attorney's office to develop a standard format for contacting owners and
6. Educate neighborhood residents, property owners, and business owners about nuisance
abatement laws.
7. Develop a procedure for reporting of sites that have ongoing gang and drug activity.
8. Set up monthly meetings between school districts, law enforcement, social service agencies,
business, government, residents and others to develop and implement strategies to reduce
gang related crimes.
9. Hold monthly press events highlighting enforcement and programs.
10. Encourage Prosecutors to eliminate plea bargaining for gang related crimes.
11. Develop a procedure for reporting of sites that have drug trafficking and gang activity.
12. Establish a system to identify and apprehend habitual offenders who are responsible for a
disproportionate share of crime in Yakima.
13. Work with school districts to involve police officers in the schools instructing gang and drug
resistance programs.
14. Develop anti -crime patrols to target high crime areas.
15. Install hotlines and tip lines for neighborhood residents and business owners to assist in
identifying sites of criminal activity.
16. Recruit citizen patrol members, block watch leaders, business owners, and volunteers to
work with law enforcement to establish Citizen's Safety Committees for high crime areas.
•
3
City of Yakima
;
; l% %ri��T oF
Police Department 200 S. .1 Street Yakima, Iti; ;.5�� =, -
Samuel Granato, Chief of Police Washington 98901
� it
Telephone (509)575 -6200 Fax (509)575 -6007 1 `�- % '�
MEMORANDUM
February 24, 2010
TO: City Manager Dick Zais
FROM: Deputy Police Chief Kelly Rosenow
SUBJECT: Red Light Camera Update
The utilization of Red Light and School Zone Camera technology was discussed by
council members and city staff at the February 17, 2010, Public Safety Committee
meeting. Mr. Kroske of American Traffic Solutions was invited to the meeting and
conducted a short presentation on this technology.
The Public Safety Committee members voted to bring this topic before the full
council for discussion. If the Council wishes to move forward on the implementation
of the camera technology there are numerous issues which need to be addressed by
• city staff.
The Red Light and School Zone Technology is in use in approximately 17 other
Washington State cities, In Eastern Washington, Moses Lake, Wenatchee, and
Spokane are currently utilizing the technology. City staff need to determine the
following:
• City staff needs to determine if there is any cost to the City of Yakima for
the installation, upkeep, or monitoring of the technology. In the initial
discussions with Mr. Kroske, he maintains there is no.cost to the City.
• City staff will need to determine if state or local bid laws apply to this
technology. City Purchasing and Legal are researching this question.
• While there was a previous identification of intersections in need of this
technology, this information is approximately two (2) years old and needs
to be updated.
It is recommended the Red Light and School Zone Camera technology not be
primarily viewed as a source of revenue. With the limited staffing resources of the
Police Department there are many unpatrolled intersections and school zones. The
technology is a tool to assist the Police Department in making these intersections
and school zones safe.
Please find attached an article from The National Safety Commission Alerts
regarding Red Light Cameras and safety.
If Council wishes for staff to explore this technology further, it is. recommended City
Staff be instructed to work with the red light camera dealers to determine if there is 411
a need for this technology, by conducting testing at selected intersections and in
school zones.
Please find attached Captain Copeland's initial research concerning Red Light and
School Zone Cameras.
As per the Association of Washington Cities the two Red Light Bills recently
introduced into the 2010 Legislative Process have died.
2
CITY OF YAKIMA - LEGAL DEPARTMENT
200 S. 3rd St, Yakima, WA 98901-2830
Jeff Cutler, City Attorney
4 11tIL DMSION CRIMINAL DMSION
Helen A Harvey Cynthia Martinez
Lawrence Waters Bronson Faul
Jim Mitchell Jon Seitz
Phone: (509) 575-6030 FAX (509) 575-6160 Phone: (509) 575-6033
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chief Sam Granato
Cpt. Greg Copeland
FROM: Bronson Faul, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: February 25, 2010
SUBJECT: Traffic Safety Cameras
III In 2007 the City of Yakima started gathering information on traffic safety cameras.
Ultimately, Council considered the information and decided against proceeding with the
traffic safety cameras. There has been renewed interest in further analyzing and
updating the information in regards to these cameras.
Currently, there are two separate bills that have been introduced in the 2010 regular
legislative session. The first is Senate Bill 6410. This bill clarifies the amount of fine
that can be charged for these tickets. The change would authorize a fine not to exceed
the average amount for fines issued for other parking infractions. The second is House
Bill' 2780. 2780 changes the rule that allows a registered owner to avoid the ticket by
stating under oath they were not the driver. There is also an addition that requires the
yellow light at the monitored intersections to be at least four seconds long. The fine
amount in this bill also clarifies the fine to not exceed $25. The latest information from
AWC is that both bills have not make it out of committee and are not being considered
at this time.
There has also been legal action taken against the jurisdictions that have installed
traffic safety cameras. At least two class action lawsuits were filed in King County
Superior Court. The suits litigate the fine amount and fee structure in place as well as
the contracts between the manufacturer and cities.
One bright spot in the litigation area is Grant County District Court has heard arguments
and issued a decision on the fine amount and contract. The case is not binding and
® has no precedential value in our court but the judge ruled the fee structure and fine in
place was Constitutional.
•
YAKIMA POLICE DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMO
` DATE: February 3, 2010
TO: DC Rosenow
FROM: Capt. Copeland
SUBJECT: Traffic Safety Cameras
OVERVIEW
Yakima Police Staff have been asked to further examine the topic of Traffic Safety
Cameras. Research has shown that the institution of aTraffic Safety Camera Program in
Yakima is legally permissible, may reduce some collisions, and would provide a source
of revenue to the City of Yakima. However, as with most new ventures, there are
positive and negative aspects to such a program.
POSITIVE ASPECTS
Studies seem to indicate that Red Light Cameras can reduce right -angle collisions at
intersections. A right -angle collision is the type often caused by vehicle operators who
run red lights. There are some indications that the cameras may increase rear -end
collisions to, some degree —a good evaluation of this subject by the US Dept. of.
Transportation is attached to this report.
Many agencies are also employing Speed Enforcement Cameras in school zones —the use
of these cameras can increase driver awareness and safety in the zones.
Finally, a Traffic Safety Camera program can provide a source of revenue to the City.
NEGATIVE ASPECTS
There has been some negative publicity about Camera Enforcement programs. Much of
the negative publicity has focused on the high dollar amount assigned to fines generated
by the cameras (typically over $100.00). The high dollar amounts are contrasted to the
amounts mentioned during the legislative debate which allowed them (more like $20.00).
Some citizens see the cameras as money - producers for jurisdictions. Pro and Con
editorials from the Seattle area are attached to this report. .
There are also currently at least two class- action lawsuits pending in Washington State,
against 20 cities. Among the cities being included in the suit are Moses Lake, Spokane,
and Wenatchee. At least one city (Edmonds) is holding off on the implementation of a
camera program until the legal issues in the suit are decided. Relevant articles are
•
attached.
•
There are currently being measures bein debated in both the House and the Senate which
would curtail the fines and other aspects of current Camera Enforcement programs.
Bronson Faul from, City Legal has more information on these issues.
CASE STUDY: MOSES LAKE
Terri Oliver, Administrative Assistant at the Moses Lake Police Department, was
interviewed —much of her daily duties involve administering the Moses Lake camera
program. Moses Lake currently has two Red Light Camera- monitored intersections and
one school zone which is monitored by Speed Enforcement Cameras. Moses Lake has a
contract with Redflex, and Oliver gave Redflex high marks for their products and
customer service. -
I asked Oliver to describe for me exactly how the system works in Moses Lake, and she
described the following to me: The cameras record the violations, which are then
reviewed by Redflex to make sure there was an actual violation and that a readable
License plate number is on the recording. The recordings are then made available to
Moses Lake PD via the Redflex website. Officers review the recordings, of which there
are usually 30 -50 a day —this takes about half an hour. The reviewing officer approves
the valid violations on the website, and Reflex then sends the registered owner of the
vehicle involved a ticket. The red light violations are currently $112.00 the school zone
speeding tickets start at $112.00 and become incrementally larger depending on the speed 110
of the vehicle. The registered owners can either pay the ticket (in a variety of ways) or
contest it in Moses Lake's Municipal Court. If they contest it, a judge reviews the
recording in open court and then almost always (because of the prior checking by Redflex
and by officers) finds that a violation occurred. Registered owners are also able to
indicate that they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident —there is a
place on the form where they can list who the actual driver was, but owners are not
required to name the driver in order to avoid paying the ticket.
Owners are required to pay in full — Oliver said the City experimented with a time
payment system early on, but found the process to be extremely cumbersome. They
quickly abandoned it.
Ron Cone from the Moses Lake Finance Dept was also interviewed about the Moses
Lake program. He advised that the combined total number of tickets issued from the Red
Light camera recordings for 2009 was 1,551. The total number from the school zone
tickets was 2,339. In total the City received $656,539.00 and paid Redflex $324, 149.00.
He stated that labor to administer the program cost the City about $50,000.00.
REDFLEX/AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS
I have had conversations with Glen Post from Redflex, and Sgt. Jones has had
conversations with Bill Kroske from American Traffic solutions. These are the two main
companies that are involved with camera enforcement in the Northwest. Both are
• interested in presenting information to City officials about their programs. Typically they
would come to an area such as ours and do a survey in which they would monitor high-
accident intersections for a 24 hour period. If jurisdictions are interested in school zone
enforcement, they would do a survey of recommended school zones as well. If they feel
the violation numbers are high enough to warrant a camera enforcement program, they
will begin contract negotiations with the jurisdiction.
Capt Greg Copeland
S
•
The National Safety Commission Alerts
Safety is No Accident
Friday, April 10, 2009
RED LIGHT CAMERAS - A DIFFERENT TAKE
More and more municipalities are installing red light cameras (RLCs) and as their
use grows so does the controversy surrounding their use.
Recent articles report that some drivers complain that RLCs violate their right to
privacy and there have been reports of angry drivers striking back by disabling RLCs,
or buying special sprays or license plate covers to blur their license plate.
Lawmakers are complaining too. Some cities are voting to remove the cameras
because, with the lower incidence of red light running, they cost too much without
the ticket revenue to pay for them.
To fully understand some of these issues it is helpful to first, understand what red
light running is and why the cameras were seen to be necessary in the first place.
Red light running is a form of aggressive driving that has grown to epidemic
proportions over the last 20 years. An act that was rarely, if ever, seen by older
110 drivers is now seen on a daily basis.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) cites a study conducted at 19
intersections (without red light cameras) over four states showing that people were
running red lights at a rate of 3.2 per hour. The IIHS states that more people are
likely to be injured by red light runners than by any other type of urban crash. The
National Highway Traffic Administration reported that almost 900 people
were killed and an estimated 153,000 were injured . in crashes that
involved red light running in 2007. About half of the deaths in red light running
crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light
runners. A study by Old. Dominion University in Virginia (ODU) showed that 55.8
percent of Americans admit to running red lights; yet 96 percent of drivers were
afraid of being hit by a red light runner.
The IIHS states that studies show that RLCs cut down on the incidence of red light
running dramatically however one study that has gained the most attention claims
that RLCs increase the number of collisions at the intersections where they have
been installed.
A frank discussion of all of these issues is in order:
Red Light Cameras increase the number of collisions at intersections- The study
cited by those who want to do away with RLCs did show that, once drivers became
aware of the presence of an RLC, there was a slight increase in low velocity rear -end
collisions by drivers who assumed the car ahead wouldn't stop. The data clearly
shows that the incidents of high velocity side collisions (commonly called "T -bone
3
collisions ") by red light runners are dramatically reduced at intersections where RLCs
are installed. A low impact rear -end collision is far more survivable than a high
velocity T -bone collision. ODU also conducted a unique study of intersections in •
Virginia Beach VA where they had the opportunity to study red light runners before
an RLC was installed, during the time the RLC was in operation, and after the law
providing for the RLC expired and the cameras were removed. The study showed
that the number of crashes decreased.
The Supreme Court has held that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy for
acts conducted in public. If you are out on a city street, you can't hide behind the
Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, especially
when you are breaking the law. Those irate drivers who have tried to damage or
disable RLCs aren't valiant defenders of the fourth amendment but rather, vandals
who are destroying tax payer property. Security cameras of all types have become
so common that we usually forget that they are there and no one seems to
complain because we know they are there to protect us. RLCs only take pictures of
those drivers who are running the red light; not those who are obeying the law. The
nightly news never shows the guy who went into a convenience store to buy a big
gulp; only the armed thug who came in to rob the store. Those who are worried
about their privacy should obey the law. The studies show that RLCs save lives.
Attitudes toward them might be different if it was your spouse or child who was
injured or killed by a red light runner. during the time the RLCs were operational
but, once the lights were removed, the number of red light runners increased by
3.59 percent within one year. It seemed that once aggressive divers were no longer
worried about being photographed, they ran the lights more than ever. •
Red Light Cameras are a drain on city revenues. Cities that initially
experienced an increase in revenues from RLCs become dismayed when, as the
incidents of red light running decrease, they stop generating revenue and become
an unexpected revenue loser. Cities that install RLCs as a way of generating money
seem to be seeking the wrong goal. The de aths and permanently disabling injuries
prevented should be the goal of RLCs. We pay large sums of money each year to
hire and equip police officers in the hope that, by their mere presence, they will
prevent crime from happening in the first place and very few complain about that
cost. RLCs act as a permanent police presence working tirelessly 24/7. If we were to
compare the cost of an RLC with the cost of posting police officers at an intersection
24 hours a day it would quickly become apparent that RLCs are a bargain. The IIHS
says that the cost of red light running in America is approximately 7 billion dollars
per year. It is difficult to determine how much money is saved by an event that
never happens and prevention should be the goal.
Red Light Cameras are a violation of privacy. The Supreme Court h as held
that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy for acts conducted in public. If
you are out on a city street, you can't hide behind the Constitution's guarantee
against unreasonable searches and seizures, especially when you are breaking the
law. Those irate drivers who have tried to damage or disable RLCs aren't valiant
defenders of the fourth amendment but rather, vandals who are destroying tax •
payer property. Security cameras of all types have become so common that we
usually forget that they are there and no one seems to complain because we know
4
they are there to protect us. RLCs only take pictures of those drivers who are
running the red light; not those who are obeying the law. The nightly news never
• shows the guy who went into.a convenience store to buy a big gulp; only the armed
thug who came in to rob the store. Those who are worried about their privacy
should obey the law. The studies show that RLCs save lives. Attitudes toward them
might be different if it was your spouse or child who was injured or killed by a red
light runner.
http:// www .nationalsafetycommission.com /alerts /2009 /04 /red - light - cameras-
different -ta ke. php
•
5
ust • •
they µ
REASONS TO SUPPORT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT
.F
Roadway Dangers
• A red light is run every 20 minutes.'
• Red -light running is the leading cause of urban crashes.'
• 96% of people are afraid of being hit by a red -light runner.'
• Speeding kills more than 1,000 Americans every month.'
• The economic cost of speed - related crashes is more than $40 billion each year.'
The Solution: Photo Enforcement
Red -light running and speeding are a result of aggressive driving and are completely
preventable with the assistance of proven traffic safety technology.
1. Intersection safety and speed cameras work because they are transparent
and assist in modifying driving behavior to deter violations.° •
2. The use of intersection safety cameras results in significant injury and
crash reductions:
- 25% decrease in total right -angle crashes.
- 16% reduction in injury right -angle crashes.
- 15% increase in total rear -end crashes.
- 24% increase in injury rear -end crashes!
.3. Intersection safety cameras save society $39,000 to $50,000 annually at
each intersection where they are installed.°
4. The Seventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, affirmed the constitutionality of
intersection safety programs in January 2009.
5. The general public supports intersection safety cameras:
- 69% of Americans support the use of intersection safety cameras at
dangerous intersections'. Many national, regional and local surveys have
found overwhelming support amongst the public for photo enforcement.
- AAA's 2009 Traffic Safety index reported that 94% of those surveyed rated
red -light running as unacceptable.
1.2.4.6 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) •
' A 2002 nationwide survey sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
"The Federal Highway Administration
2 Public Opinion Strategies, 2009
•
City of Yakima "
Police Department 200 S. 1 Street Yak /ma, �S; ';�
yam > + ��
Samuel Granato, Chief of Police Washington 98901 ��;�,�
'\ '
Telephone (509)575 -6200 Fax (509)575 -6007 ;;
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 2010
Updated February 24, 2010
TO: Dick Zais, City Manager
FROM: Kelly M. Rosenow, Deputy Chief of Police
SUBJECT: School Resource Officer Cost
The Yakima School District has funded 100% of the cost for four School Resource
Officers (SRO's) for several years. Due to the severe budget constraints caused by a
reduction in the state levy equalization fund, the Yakima School District has
requested that the City contribute 25% of the salary and benefits of the four SRO's.
The proposal will result in the following costs for the department's budget:
2010: $97,050
2011: $102,600
These costs equal one FTE police officer position. With the current fiscal situation of
the city, there are not many funding options to cover the school districts proposed
funding reduction. The SRO program is very important to students, the City, the
department, and the Yakima School District. While the department can reduce the
number of SRO's to three, the city will still need to pay for the officer's position.
Staff recommends that the City contribute the requested 25% share in order to
sustain the four police officer positions as SRO's. This cost shift will be
accomplished by delaying the filling of a vacant General Fund police officer position
until the 4 quarter of 2010. Officer positions funded by the federal COPS program
will still be filled first.
Due to a retirement in the police sergeant rank, a police officer will be promoted
effective March 1, 2010, leaving a vacant police officer position. The Public Safety
Committee approved leaving this position vacant until the 4 quarter of 2010 in
order to accomplish the cost sharing.
Additionally, the current contract with the Yakima School District is valid through
March 31, 2010. Staff would like direction from the Council on how to proceed with
negotiating the contract and the month to month continuation of the current
• contract.
City of Yakima 200 S. 3rd Street
• P o ice Department Yakima, Washington 98901
Sam Granato, Chief of Police Telephone (509)575 -6200 Fax (509)575 -6007
•
Date: February .10, 2010
•
To: Sam Granato, Chief of Police
From: Cesar Abreu •
Subject: Statistical Comparison - Yr 2008 versus 2009
The following information has been prepared for your use based on your request dated 4 February
2010. .
In terms of monthly statistics for all Part I crimes were extracted and analyzed. All crimes continue •
to show.a steady downward trend.
An analysis conducted of all Part I crimes depicted an overall decline of 10.81%, when compared to
all Part I crimes for 2008. Other crime decreases were noted in the following:
Part I Crimes during 2009 reached a cumulative total of 6927 thus versus 7767 recorded for 2008.
0 Comparing 2009 to 2008, we showed a significant decrease in sex crimes or nearly 56% decrease.
Equally, we showed a marked decrease in Theft Crimes for a 22% decrease compared to 2008.
Additionally, Auto Thefts are down - 13.75% over the previous year of 2008.
Implementation of the emphasis patrol was a contributing factor for the decline in crimes observed
during the July, August and September 2009. The table below indicates a percentage change by
year for all Part 1 Crimes during calendar years 2008 and 2009. .
2008 2009 Change
Criminal
•
Homicide 8 12 50:0% -
Forcible Rape 47 67 42.6%
Sex 102 45 -55.9%
Robbery 134 136 1.5%
Assaults (All) 1481 1523 2.8%
Burglary 1230 1351 9.8%
Larceny Theft 3937 3076 -21.9%
Vehicle Theft • 800 690 . -13.8%
Arson 28 27 -3.6%
. ' 7767 6927 -10.81%
Crime increases have also been noted in the following:
Homicides, up 50 %; Forcible Rape, up 42.6 % and Burglary with 9.8 %; However, the most
• significant increase noted were Rape cases listing an increase of 20 cases over the previous year for
a cumulative increase of 42.6% over the previous year (2008). It should be noted that although
Homicides shows an increase of 50 %, I must indicate that caution should be exercised when •
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Subject: Statistical Comparison - Yr 2008 versus 2009
interpreting low numbers as the percentage changes will be significant when interpreting small 0
numbers as they could skew the results, given the impression of very high or low percentage
changes. As a side note, the following vehicles were recorded as being 'stolen with the most
frequency: Honda (Accord, followed by Civic), Chevrolet, Toyota (Camry) , Ford and Dodge
respectively.
Crime decreases were also noted in the follow Burglary, Larceny Theft, Auto theft, Assaults.
The yearly figures for all Part I Crimes are as follows:
Part I Crimes
YTD Comparison & Percent Change
4500 -- —_...— — - -.... — - - - - - -- — — ... ._._.._-- ._._..._--- -__.— ... -.- ___ —__— 80.0%
4000 — — 60.0%
50% rq
3500 43% t 076 — 40.0%
3000 . s e - - �. , „ 'i "� e rr' `ix S r - �. r �x'§ o
z -t # - i"s " z t 5 x � r t, k J, 's �'M ia' o "' Y �` � a �5;,�s� — 20.0 /o
f'r 1a" $f - u:� "• 3x - u . e. � a r 2 � N Y r r M,�-x /o y .d x`
2 5 0 0 -
3 % : z� ?��a � ? '�w , � ,'� "���'� x �, 0 0. 0 /o
2000 4-it ,t � a l Ot �, d. � t r Y � �3 r `: � l T 1 /0 �x-7 � � 1 - a-
P e ` .�»� 1„ + �S i k ', r x v '`' ' `i � � $ k"�- o - k' Yr �' �s — _20. 0%o
y - r vt 1.,-. mi ' Y. .,. ar. -#s 5 + : } 2 . r w a
1500 �+ e .e r � v s+ ,, t" 311 .... ,� t ^. ,„� ..
7«.� : � Y � ` 56 °0 ' r ,?` r v'4' - r 1 M 1 1 � 0 .. x i 'A a 'i` s. �r" - 40.0%
1 000 - x .. M i ." c d 0 w A M IN 5u: < g � , ...i. . �.. �t 800 u' i t"'
t °Y, . .� --5.- Yp 7 ;G. '` S t. r' r'. ' '.x" ,, k %� „ it 1 .:: t c , 1 "` ' 1 y + ` i
500 v . . x r �` a
6 1� 4. 7 v ') ° - S" ",: r4+ w3M6 t - „,ra! , , 4' •44 �, °°`
P ,4 ∎, S ^ 5- ,.g .,4t
0 ��€ +�� �;p. *—.:.,;—,'..‘4711'94 . . arrr s '� n , >�:' � � r� 1 � A sF � � # ; _80.0%
Criminal Forcible Sex Robbery Agg Burglary Larceny Vehicle Arson III
Homicide Rape Assault Theft Theft
mama 2008 2009 -,.,a- % Change
Part 1 Crimes
as-37 Ill 4000
3076 3500
3
3000
" ti"'".1.: "... v ��` ,= Y �8s t � n r 0 �,. 2
� . A .�" m 20
1000
¢ , 5 7 x•� . * #0 1 c r cep: 1500
� f d's { r� ,i o e s
t OI ti � .. ' .
10`2 13'4 2.� � �1 I r 2$
,: 8 1 42 = '''+� f�136 , ky L9 �+,,: ,�; s `i, ' r 500
o � a�e � o eta y aJ\` O \a � � rg �ti e e h 0. t4
P
e
G
III
is 2008 E 2009
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Subject: Statistical Comparison - Yr 2008 versus 2009
•
The chart below shows a comparison moving average: Subject: Statistical Comparison - Yr 2008
versus 2009
Part I Crimes
Comparison
4500
4000
3500
3000�� °
2500 u��p
2000 i a i5X� G r��sr
1500
1000 �� tZi�"`� ^* �;� . s a : ^�'�
;
4 4� ,
�ae aQ e fie AOC' yyaJ`� e
�
Q ° �a J
• G``
2008 2009
If you have any questions regarding this material please contact the undersigned at 509 -576 -6517.
ISI
Cesar Abreu
Crime Analysis Supervisor
YPD
•
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY