HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-07 Item 2A, Ramsey County Sheriffs Dept Update
~
~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
June 18, 2007
AGENDA ITEM 2.A.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator ~ ~
SUBJECT: Discussion with Ramsey County Sheriffs Department
I have asked the Ramsey County Sheriffs Department to attend the June 18 City Council
meeting. There are several goals for this discussion:
· For those new to the Council, to meet RCSD representatives who are responsible for
providing law enforcement services to the City of Arden Hills, and to learn more about
the contract cities arrangement;
· To have a preliminary discussion regarding the operating budget for 2008, and address
any questions or concerns the Council may have; and
· Address any overall questions or concerns Council may have with the services provided
by RCSD.
For your reference and background, I have attached the following documents:
. 2006 Ramsey County Sheriffs Department Annual Review
· April 12, 2007 Minutes - Long Range Planning Meeting
. 2007 Goals
· Law Enforcement contract cities budget estimate changes*
. Preliminary budget estimates for 2008 and 2009
*Last year, a subcommittee was assigned to try and project a three-year budget so that the cities
could better plan and prepare. This document represents their recommendation; however, it
needs to be updated.
COUNCIL FEEDBACK REQUESTED
Provide RCSD representatives with feedback regarding concerns, questions, and issues.
Provide staff and RCSD with input regarding 2008 budget preparation
Attachments
MW
C:\Documents and Settings\michelle.wolfe\Desktop\6M18-07 Sheriff work session.doc
11/14/06
Consolidated Comments
2006 Ramsey County Sheriff's Department Annual Review
(Including reviews by: Arden Hills, Gem Lake, Little Canada, North Oaks,
Vadnais Heights & White Bear Township)
1. What are some of the things that you felt went well during the
calendar year 2006? (Things that you think RCSD did well. List
significant accomplishments, planned and unplanned.)
AH Work in the multi-housing communities has been excellent,
Decrease in calls is evidence.
AH Responsiveness overall has improved this year. (Not that it was
bad to start, but it was really good this past year.)
GL Canine squads had a great year and GIU cases closed had a high
rate of closure,
LC Continued responsiveness to traffic concerns.
LC VIPS and the Reserve Program continue to be tremendous assets
to our city in addressing special projects and community events.
LC Deputies solved a number of crimes in short order in 2005 due to
quick response to a call, good follow-up investigations, or
sometimes due to fortuitous circumstances. This continued a trend
we noticed in 2005.
LC Patrol division leadership continues to be very responsive to
inquiries or service requests.
LC Nice try with Administrative Fines - would like to get legislative
authority to make it work.
LC Very helpful with Valor issue in terms of meeting attendance,
citation of violations, and making staff at City Hall feel safe in this
matter.
LC Initiation of RCSD cable program. More PR to residents is a good
thing.
LC Weekly crime reports are helpful.
NO North Oaks has been pleased with the services provided by the
Ramsey County Sheriff's Department. The trespass checks at the
entrances, overweight vehicle enforcement and responsiveness to
traffic issues have been seen as strengths in this community. The
procurement of our CSO has been seen as very positive.
VH Use of speed carts and speed boards were quite effective.
VH Addition of second traffic squad was helpful in second half of year.
VH Communications of incidents in contract communities continued to
be good or improved.
WBT The Township appreciates good access to RCSD staff, especially
Undersheriff Altendorfer, Lieutenant Salter, and Deputies Entner,
Thurmer, and Ruettimann. They are easy to contact, return calls
quickly, and are responsive to the Township's day-to-day needs.
WBT The Township appreciates RCSD's willingness and availability to
participate in community events like our Annual Town Meeting and
the Otter Lake Elementary School Carnival.
WBT The Township appreciates RCSD's resources being available to
assist the Township on special law enforcement duties such as
enforcing seasonal sprinkling regulations and Bald Eagle Winter
patrol.
2. What are some of the concerns that you had with the performance of
the RCSD during the calendar year 2006? What would we like to have
accomplished but didn't, and why?
AH The City continues to have concerns with staffing for absences.
Question whether the department is meeting the intent of the
agreement when we often don't have a car in our city.
AH A concern is that we have experiences where a deputy comes out
and tells us information that ends up somewhat inaccurate.
(Example - they can't assist with our vandalism problem because
it's occurring during shift change.) If we go to George or Mike it gets
resolved. Similar issue is that residents are told by dispatch that it's
not a law enforcement mater, to call the City. (Le. dispatch acting
as a "filter" for the deputies.)
AH An on-going concern expressed by our Council members is visibility
in the neighborhoods.
2
GL Community policing and assistance with administrative
enforcement on occasion (perhaps on a per call out basis?)
LC "No Parking" enforcement is very minimal. We understand that at
times, other priorities push this type of concern to the bottom of the
list. However, there are other times where an officer drives by a
violating vehicle and just keeps going This appears to be lack of
interest in enforcing this type of violation.
LC Winter no parkinglsnow birds are not proactively enforced. Our
ordinance calls for no parking when snowfall exceeds two inches.
It is rare when Public Works does not have to call the dispatcher to
ask the deputies to enforce this ordinance. Without consistent
enforcement, people won't pay attention to the ordinance, which
means more cars on the streets when we plow. To this end, we
initiated a "Winter No-Parking" ordinance (2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. -
November 1st until April 1S\ We hope this makes it easier for
officers to proactively address this issue.
NO The lack of community oriented policing whereas residents and
business owners would not be able to name or associate with the
specific Deputies that work within the community. Some of our
residents do not like to make a police call for what they consider to
be a nuisance type of issue. This issue now appears to be
somewhat resolved with the addition of our community service
office. The overwhelming feedback has been positive in nature.
VH Concerned when squads are out of service. We need to watch this
closely.
WBT The Township appreciates deputies willingness to respond to code
enforcement and other calls that may eventually involve other
Township staff. We want to encourage the deputies to continue
this, but we would also like to be notified of these contacts so that
the Township staff who also respond to these calls are aware of the
work that the deputies have already put in.
3
3. Are there certain strenaths and weaknesses that you would like to
observe about the performance of RCSD in 2006?
Strenaths:
AH Strength is that this year I feel responsiveness has increased
tremendously. When I have communicated an issue of concern,
George or Mike have made sure that it's been addressed.
GL Response times appear to be excellent thanks to roving patrols.
Have not had a single complaint in Gem Lake.
LC Mike and George are very accessible, diligent, and accountable.
LC Tim Entner is a tremendous asset in the traffic car.
LC Addition of second traffic car should be a big plus - it is already
being noticed.
LC Dan Ruettimann is doing a good job with Crime Prevention given
the resources available.
NO Ability to draw from a large list of volunteers, VIPS, specialty
services such as water patrol, investigations, K-9, traffic
enforcement, etc.
NO Progressive response to aid the hurricane victims and to attempt to
formulate a response to the growing meth problem.
VH Great responses to medical concerns and to calls for service in
general.
VH Great use of K9 squads.
WBT Broad range of expertise, flexibility, and willingness to apply to
needs of community.
Weaknesses:
LC See # 2 comments.
LC While I am pleased with the RCSD show on Cable TV, I think we
could still do targeted spots aimed at things such as creation of a
neighborhood watch group, how to prevent theft from auto, how to
prevent identity theft, home security checks, etc. A few of the
4
contract jurisdictions have 100 of assistance that we could pool to
help in this regard.
NO North Oaks would like to see more efforts made to promote
neighborhood crime watches - this can not be traced back to lack
of effort by Ramsey County however.
VH Understaffed at times.
VH Lack of neighborhood patrolling at times.
4. What suaaestions do you have for any changes during calendar year
2007?
AH It would be really helpful to receive materials for our monthly
meetings before the meetings, instead of as handouts. So there is
a chance to study them before the meeting.
GL More visibility through shared CSO's providing extra eyes. More
electronic surveillance using new affordable technologies.
LC More traffic enforcement by City squads.
LC More citywide patrol, especially on less traveled streets during high
visibility times.
LC Continue to be aggressive in compliance of crime prevention
standards for the multi-family housing units.
LC Provide more timely reports on multi-family housing crime
prevention activities and results.
LC Continue to apply pressure on multi-family housing units with a high
call rate to establish on-site security or Sheriff's presence.
LC Be more aggressive in tagging unlicensed vehicles parked in side
yards and/or driveways that have street access.
NO Efforts to control costs are always appreciated.
VH Try to coordinate use of speed boards/carts and traffic patrols as
much as possible during unweave the weave construction. Watch
school speed zones and around park areas closely.
5
VH Increase police exposure in neighborhoods and high traffic areas,
like Wal-Mart.
VH In "regular" concern areas where speeding is a concern, such as
Greenhaven Drive, have regular scheduled traffic patrolling
scheduled.
VH In neighborhoods that complain of speeding, or similar concerns,
conduct a neighborhood meeting to discuss what the concerns are
with neighborhood residents.
VH City Council would like to periodically have sheriff patrol deputies
and other Sheriff Department Officials stop by the City Council
meetings where they would be formally introduced, to let our
community know who is working out there in our community and it
gives us a chance for us to show our appreciation for them.
WBT Continue to find ways to utilize RCSD's wide range of skills and
resources to address changing needs of the contract communities.
5. What trends should we be aware of, and be watching in terms of
future planning?
AH In Arden Hills we have TCAAP moving ahead, it appears, and we
will need to start planning for what that will mean in terms of service
needs, and what the associated costs will be. Also we will have a
minimum of two new Council members, possibly a new Mayor, so
we will likely need to do some education about the services or
RCSD and how they are provided.
GL Continued growth of meth related crimes (crimes against persons)
by those moving into the area from outside.
GL Should the contract cities extend licensing on fees to multi-family
rental properties? It appears a lot of our domestic violence occurs
here.
GL Traffic speeds during Unweave will also continue to be a problem
as people use short cut.
LC The presence of meth in our area.
LC Thefts from auto.
LC Auto thefts.
(;
LC Identify theft.
LC Graffiti.
LC Traffic issues in general, but especially revolving around Unweave
the Weave impacts.
LC Crimes committed to finance drug habits. How do we educate the
public about the dangers and pitfalls of drug use and what it can do
to the person and the community. Also, how can we protect
ourselves from these crimes?
NO North Oaks has been working with the Sheriff's Department directly
to address some of the issues that are seen as unique and specific
to North Oaks and are probably not issues that are of concern to
the contract communities.
NO Some of our residents are expressing that we are spending too
much for police protection when we already have a very safe
community.
VH Unweave the weave traffic patterns will change from time to time.
VH 24-hour stores need to be watched closely for crime in off-peak
times.
WBT Code enforcement and resolving neighbor disputes are continuing
to grow in the Township. Supplementing our Building
Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer and providing dispute
resolution are areas of "opportunity".
6. Are there any other comments you would like to make about the
performance of RCSD during calendar year 2006?
AH In general feel they have been increasingly responsive to resident
complaints and concerns.
GL Excellent job.
LC RCSD has done an excellent job for our community over the years.
Many improvements in service delivery and they truly make a
difference for our residents. f need to do a better job in telling those
delivering the service that we do appreciate the job they do for us
(all the way up and down the line) day in and day out.
7
NO Overall, the City and Council is pleased with the work.and efforts of
the Sheriffs Department. There are a lot of good, dedicated people
working to protect our community.
VH Great Open House. Please give more notice to get the word out to
public.
VH All in all, the City is very satisfied with the efforts of the Ramsey
County Sheriffs Department in providing policing for our
community.
WBT Looking forward to working with RCSD and Gem Lake to
incorporate an office or "sub-station" in new GLlWBT municipal
building.
WFSlpsw
cc:admin.file
b:consolidatedcomments-06
R
MINUTES
LONG RANGE PLANNING MEETING
OF THE JURISDICTIONS THAT CONTRACT WITH THE RAMSEY
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES
APRIL 12,2007
Joel Hanson called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m., at the Ramsey County
Sheriff's Department Patrol Station Conference Room - 1411 Kirkwold Drive,
Arden Hills.
The following members were present:
. Joel Hanson, City of Little Canada
. Gerry Urban, City of Vadnais Heights
. Michelle Wolfe, City of Arden Hills
. Terry Schwerm, City of Shoreview
. Jim March, City of North Oaks
. Bill Short, White Bear Township and Gem Lake
Joel asked for reaction to the e-mail that he had sent out on April 11th regarding
inviting County Commissioners to a meeting. It was the consensus of the group
that there was no need to invite the Commissioners to attend the April 19,2007
meeting. The group decided that we could invite them to a meeting this fall if
there was anything of substance that we want to discuss with them.
The group discussed the topic "youth diversion services" as a follow-up to the
meeting that most attended on Friday, April 6th, with representatives from the
Ramsey County Board, White Bear Lake Community Counseling Center,
Northwest Youth and Family Services, St. Paul Youth Service Board, the
Children's Home Society, Ramsey County Corrections, and suburban cities.
LONG RANGE PLANNING
2006 Goals - Review
Hanson led a review of the list that was prepared in March of 2006.
1. Neighborhood and Community Visibility.
It was concluded that it be combined with item No. 2 - Low Cost
Options, and included in the 2007 Goals.
2. Crime Prevention Priorities & Staffing.
Joel volunteered to work with George on an action plan for 2007.
MINUTES
LONG RANGE PLANNING MEETING
APRIL 12, 2007
3. 5-Year Budget Document.
This was prepared in 2006 but needs to be updated each year. It
was the consensus of the group that the 5-year budget plan be
updated, presented, and discussed as the first step of the
upcoming year's budget process and included in the Annual
Meeting Schedule and Agenda. (Terry volunteered to work with
George Altendorfer on this.)
4. Emergency Preparedness.
It was the consensus of the group that this item was adequately
addressed in 2006, and therefore doesn't need to be included in the
2007 Goals.
5. Joint Code Enforcement.
It was the consensus of the group that this topic was not discussed
much in 2006 and should be included in the 2007 goals. (Bill will
update the action plan on this.)
6. Annual Planning Cycle.
This item was completed in 2006, but needs to be updated
annually. (Gerry volunteered to do this for 2007.)
7. Monthly Meeting Effectiveness.
It was the consensus of the group that the meetings have become
more effective over the last year, but could still be improved. The
group agreed on the following:
. Get draft Minutes out one week after the meeting
. Get draft meeting Agenda out earlier
This item need not be included in the 2007 goals.
8. Evaluate Community Notification Systems.
This was addressed in 2006. No need to include in 2007 Goals.
This subject will be included in the Annual Meeting Schedule and
Agenda as a status report.
2
MINUTES
LONG RANGE PLANNING MEETING
APRIL 12, 2007
9. Sub-Station in Eastern Area.
No need to include in 2007 Goals. (Bill Short, Gerry Urban, and
George Altendorfer will meet on this subject and report back in
2007.)
10. Dangerous Dog.
This topic is scheduled for our April 19, 2007 meeting. No need to
include in 2007 Goals unless something comes up as a result of the
discussions on April 191h.
11. Cable TV/RCSD Educational Initiations. Some work is being
done, but not as much as expected. There was discussion about
how to make cable TV productions more effective by filming "on-
scene", use of professional producers, etc. (Joel volunteered to
work with George to update this action plan.)
NEW 2007 GOALS
Joel led the discussion on possible new goals to be added to the list:
1. Evaluating Time Lost Due to Illness, Injury, Training,
Transfers, Workers Compo etc.
George and Jim March will prepare action plan.
2. Community Development Updates.
Michelle noted the importance of keeping the group informed as to
the development of the TCAAP property. It was the consensus of
the group that there be a "community update" built into the Annual
Meeting Schedule. Each community would update the RCSD and
other contract communities on developments being planned within
their community that might affect law enforcement (i.e. large new
commercial/industrial/retail projects, college housing expansion,
new multi-family complexes, new alternative education facilities,
etc.)
3. Rental Licensing and Inspection.
It was the consensus of the group that the increase in rental
housing is causing concern throughout most of the seven
communities, and that coordination in law enforcement (such as
3
MINUTES
LONG RANGE PLANNING MEETING
APRIL 12, 2007
sharing of inspections and enforcement) may be useful. (Terry
volunteered to prepare an action plan.)
4. Special Events.
George explained the growing strain on the RCSD to provide
proper law enforcement for special events such as races, parades,
community sponsored events (Slice of Shoreview, Vadnais Heights
Heritage Days, etc.). It was the consensus of the group that we
focus on this. (George and Mike will prepare an action plan.)
5. Republican National Convention.
George will report on this evolving concern.
6. Legislative Issues.
It was agreed that the Annual Meeting Schedule include an update
of new laws, following the close of the Session.
Action plans are to be provided for the May meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
WilLIAM F. SHORT
4
DRAFT
2007 Goals
(From April 12, 2007 Long Range Planning Meeting)
****************************************************
1. Improve Neighborhood and Community Visibility / Evaluate Low Cost
Options - for lower priority issues - CSO's
Jim March & George Altendorfer
2. Review Crime Prevention Prioritization and Staffing -
Joel Hanson & George Altendorfer
3. Evaluate Joint Code Enforcement Programs.
Bill Short
4. Initiate Cable TV/RCSD Educational Initiations -
Joel Hanson and George Altendorfer
5. Review/Report on Time Lost Due to Illness, Injury, Training,
Transfers, Workers Comp -
George Altendorfer & Mike Salter
6. Provide On-going Community Development Updates -
Each community to Participate as Necessary
7. Evaluate Rental Licenses and Inspections-
Terry Schwerm
8. Review Special Events for Impacts on Staffing/Responsibilities -
George Altendorfer and Mike Salter
9. Prepare for Republican National Convention -
George Altendorfer and Mike Salter
10. Discuss Legislative Issues -
George Altendorfer and Community Reps
WFS/psw
b:2007goals
Law Enforcement Contract Cities budget estimate changes
2007
Full year of 2nd Traffic Deputy
810 Full year of CSO for North Oaks
S 2% Salary Increase beginning 3/1/07 (1.67%)
'3 '1,....... PERA increase for Police and Fire to 11.7%
~ Additional Insurance Benefit Increases
Increase in Motor Vehicle Supplies
Increase car replacement cost to $25,000/car with set-ups
Included $4,000 for laptop computers
2008
No new FTE
2% COLA
PERA increase for Police and Fire to 12.9%
o1D PERA increase for civilian personnel to 6.50%
~ Included $25,000 for a new Traffic car
\.0- Increased car replacement cost to $26,000/car with set-ups
$10,000 temp for traffic
Additional $10,000 forlaptop computers
Maintained previous levels for equipment and lasers
2009
No new FTE
eJf 3% COLA
v\ '0 PERA increase for Police and Fire to 14.1 %
V\/\ PERA increase for civilian personnel to 6.75%
Increased car replacement cost to $27,000/car with set-ups
Removed $25,000 for a new Traffic car
Maintained previous levels for equipment, lasers and laptops
/~
ARDEN HILLS
%CHANGE EST COST 2008 EST COST 2007 EST COST 2006 EST COST 2005
PATROL DEPUTIES
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES
PROPERTY FLEET ASST
EQUIP&MAINT
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2
CRIME PREV
RADIO CHARGE
ESTIMATED REVENUE
SUB TOTAL
$634,396,80
$78,580.44
$9,399.70
$77,296.85
$23,212.67
$10,254.00
$16,651.33
$0.00
($46,393.35)
TOTAL
S816,315.11
(_,._,_~.>__~_____.,,_,.m,
6,03%1_$~03,3911A4 I
GEM LAKE
PATROL DEPUTIES
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES
PROPERTY FLEET ASST
EQUIP&MAINT
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2
CRIME PREV
RADIO CHARGE
ESTIMATED REVENUE
SUB TOTAL
$51,578.00
$6,693.60
$800.68
$6,458.40
$1,894.12
$5,127.00
$1,080.26
$0.00
($4,029.61)
TOTAL
SG6,61l1.94
,
5.98%~~~~~2,602.~~~!
LITTLE CANADA
PATROL DEPUTIES
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES
PROPERTy FLEET ASST
EQUIP&MAINT
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2
CRIME PREV
RADIO CHARGE
ESTIMATED REVENUE
SUB TOTAL
$685,608.24
$94,997.57
$11,363.49
$77,289.51
$25,236.60
$25,635.00
$18,242.04
$0.00
($51,323.54)
$887,3(10.8(,
TOTAL
5,60%. $887,048.91
NORTH OAKS
PATROL DEPUTIES
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES
PROPERTY FLEET ASST
EQUIP&MAINT
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2
SECURITY CSO
CRIME PREV
RADIO CHARGE
ESTIMATED REVENUE
SUB TOTAL
$380,371.17
$27,903.19
$3,337.75
$47,628.65
$13,234.81
$5,127.00
$75,170.78
$6,190.53
$0.00
($26,490.87)
S46S,Hl.29
TOTAL
8.57%$53~,4.73~Ql
3/19/2007
$600,776.97
$78,392.80
$10,085.29
$71,393.77
$16,779.25
$9,749.35
$15,928.83
$0.00
($45,401.06)
$757,705.20
$48,839.23
$6,677.61
$859.08
$5,965.18
$1,369.31
$4,874.68
$1,033.39
$0.00
($3,943.05)
$65,675.43
$649,468.29
$94,770.73
$12,192.32
$71,387.00
$18,263.44
$26,810.72
$17,450.51
$0.00
($50,358.82)
$839,984.19
$360,173.61
$27,836.56
$3,581.19
$43,991.31
$9,539.44
$0.00
$65,019.89
$5,921.92
$000
($25,639.99)
$490,423.93
$588,273.33
$76,899.51
$9,974.76
$67,256.85
$15,415.63
$6,572.33
$15,648.00
$0.00
($44,316.86)
$735,723.55
$47,821.82
$6,550.41
$849.66
$5,619.53
$1,260.19
$3,286.17
$1,015.17
$0.00
($3,77175)
$62,631.20
$635,985.04
$92,965.46
$12,058.70
$67,250.47
$16,861.67
$16,430.83
$17,142.86
$0.00
($48,745.74)
$809,949.28
$352,670.58
$27,306.30
$3,541.94
$41,442.22
$8,624.57
$3,286.17
$36,741.64
$5,817.52
$0.00
($25,326.53)
$454,104.41
$561,239.51
$69,936.68
$9,542.31
$59,937.67
$14,354.01
$14,916.25
$31,596.60
($50,123.04)
$711,400.00
$45,623.58
$5,957.31
$812.83
$5,007.99
$1,173.05
$967.70
$2,691.44
($4,097.78)
$58,136.12
$606,780.67
$84,547.94
$11,535.91
$59,931.99
$15,702.00
$16,341.20
$38,197.81
($54,408.85)
$778,628.66
$336,459.25
$24,833.87
$3,388.39
$36,932.31
$8,037.56
$5,545.47
$11,219.66
($28,652.13)
$397,764.36
PAGE 1
SHOREVIEW
$1,182,467.02
$147,833.41
$17,683.65
$143,784.20
$43,466.58
$25,635.00
$36,830.36
$0.00
$87,217.27)
PATROL DEPUTIES
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES
PROPERTY FLEET ASST
EQUIP&MAINT
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2
CRIME PREV
RADIO CHARGE
ESTIMATED REVENUE
SUB TOTAL
Sl,s.8,~98.~4
6.02% $1,510,482.95
TOTAL
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
$610,770.67
$98,245.35
$11,751.99
$70,058.58
$23,091.57
$20,508.00
$21,239.72
$0.00
($46,690.36)
PATROL DEPUTIES
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES
PROPERTY FLEET ASST
.EQUIP&MAINT
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2
CRIME PREV
RADIO CHARGE
ESTIMATED REVENUE
SUB TOTAL
~1.,1l6G.31
5,47% ,.._$~0~,ns.:?2
TOTAL
WHITE BEAR TOWN
$539,576.11
$61,846.45
$7,398.00
$63,283.81
$19,568.65
$10,254.00
$16,070.77
$0.00
($39,25501)
PATROL DEPUTIES
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES
PROPERTY FLEET ASST
EQUIP&MAINT
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2
CRIME PREV
RADIO CHARGE
ESTIMATED REVENUE
SUB TOTAL
$fi88,115.13
."..._..^....~...~,.._~w,,~.__w_
6,05%, $678, 7~2_:77 .
6.I2%~S.?~~Q!7~_4:0~
TOTAL
CONTRACT ESTIMATE
3/19/2007
$1,119,811.27
$147,480.41
$18,973.46
$132,803.56
$31,422.59
$24,373.36
$35,232.29
$0.00
,$65,349.72)
$1,424,747.24
$578,536.17
$96,010.76
$12,609.15
$64,706.26
$16,727.54
$21,936.04
$20,316.12
$0.00
($45,626.23)
$767,021.63
$511,057.61
$61,696.77
$7,937.59
$56,450.69
$14,141.96
$9,749.35
$15,373.46
$0.00
($36,412.12)
$639,997.51
$4,985,555.33
$1,096,506.63
$144,671.08
$16,765.52
$125,108.24
$26,675.46
$16,430.63
$34,611.13
$0.00
($63,194.25
$1,361,774.62
$566,520.94
$96,143.77
$12,470.96
$60,956.75
$15,535.94
$13,144.66
$19,959.91
$0.00
($44,396.47)
$740,336.46
$500,434.55
$60,523.46
$7,650.60
$55,063.95
$12,958.54
$6,572.33
$15,102.42
$0.00
($37,463.40)
$621,042.46
$4,605,564.19
$1,046,116.41
$131,571.90
$17,951.96
$111,493.43
$26,687.44
$32,992.60
$59,442.70
($93,927.77
$1,332,530.66
$540,502.11
$87,438.47
$11,930.30
$54,324.96
$14,460.77
$19,026.52
$39,503.71
($49,435.19)
$717,751.65
$477,445.99
$55,043.41
$7,510.24
$49,071.66
$12,071.06
$14,396.16
$24,667.99
($41,655.24)
$596,551.31
$4,594,762.77
PAGE 2
;/
,
ARDEN HILLS %CHANGE EST COST 2009 EST COST 2008 EST COST 2007 EST COST 2006
PATROL DEPUTIES $664,959.97 $634,396.80 $600,776.97 $588,273.33
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES $82,358.41 $78,580.44 $78,392.80 $76,899.51
PROPERTY FLEET ASST $10,005.26 $9,399.70 $10,085.29 $9,974.76
EQUIP&MAINT $79,365.31 $77,296.85 $71,393.77 $67,256.85
TRAFFIC DEPUTY $18,957.43 $23,212.67 $16,779.25 $15,415.63
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2 $10,750.26 $10,254.00 $9,749.35 $6,572.33
CRIME PREV $17,361.82 $16,651.33 $15,928.83 $15,648.00
RADIO CHARGE $0.00 $0.00 $000 $0.00
ESTIMATED REVENUE ($47,420.77) ($46,393.35) ($45,401.06) ($44,316.86)
SUB TOTAL SH5~,U5n.77
_~..~_~_.___.. _..._'__d__.,',.'_""
TOTAL 4.10%j $836,337.70 $803,398.44 $757,705.20 $735,723.55
GEM LAKE
PATROL DEPUTIES $54,062.54 $51,578.00 $48,839.23 $47,821.82
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES $7,015.41 $6,693.60 $6,677.61 $6,550.41
PROPERTY FLEET ASST $852.26 $800.68 $859.08 $849.66
EQUIP&MAINT $6,631.23 $6,458.40 $5,965.18 $5,619.53
TRAFFIC DEPUTY $1,546.87 $1,894.12 $1,369.31 $1,260.19
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2 $5,375.13 $5,127.00 $4,874.68 $3,286.17
CRIME PREV $1,126.35 $1,080.26 $1,033.39 $1,015.17
RADIO CHARGE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ESTIMATED REVENUE ($4,119.23) ($4,029.61) ($3,943.05) ($3,771.75)
SUB TOTAL S69,fi~7.80
TOTAL 4.15%' E~,4.?,0:56 . $69,602.45 $65,675.43 $62,631.20
LITTLE CANADA
PATROL DEPUTIES $718,649.88 $685,608.24 $649,468.29 $635,985.04
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES $99,564.84 $94,997.57 $94,770.73 $92,965.46
PROPERTY FLEET ASST $12,095.58 $11,363.49 $12,192.32 $12,058.70
EQUIP&MAINT $79,357.78 $77,289.51 $71,387.00 $67,250.47
TRAFFIC DEPUTY $20,614.17 $25,236.61 $18,263.44 $16,861.67
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2 $26,875.65 $25,635.00 $26,810.72 $16,430.83
CRIME PREV $19,020.40 $18,242.04 $17,450.51 $17,142.86
RADIO CHARGE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ESTIMATED REVENUE ($52,472.87) ($51,323.54) ($50,358.82) ($48,745.74)
SUB TOTAL S918,688.48
TOTAL $923,705.43 $887,048.92 $839,984.19 $809,949.28
NORTH OAKS
PATROL DEPUTIES $398,693.90 $380,371.17 $360,173.61 $352,670.58
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES $29,244.71 $27,903.19 $27,836.56 $27,306.30
PROPERTY FLEET ASST $3,552.78 $3,337.75 $3,581.19 $3,541.94
EQUIP&MAINT $48,903.20 $47,628.65 $43,991.31 $41,442.22
TRAFFIC DEPUTY $10,806.83 $13,234.79 $9,539.44 $8,624.57
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2 $5,375.13 $5,127.00 $0.00 $3,286.17
SECURITY CSD $79,581.44 $75,170.78 $65,019.89 $36,741.64
CRIME PREV $6,454.67 $6,190.53 $5,921.92 $5,817.52
RADIO CHARGE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ESTIMATED REVENUE ($27,072.11 ) ($26,490.87) ($25,639.99) ($25,326.53)
SUB TOTAL 5486,849.25 -",."--~--~---~'"---^~~-".--,
r~"-
TOTAL 4.33%; _,,~55,5:?20 :.3.:t..., $532,472.99 $490,423.93 $454,104.41
3/19/2007
PAGE 1
"
SHOREVIEW
PATROL DEPUTIES
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES
PROPERTY FLEET ASST
EOUIP&MAINT
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2
CRIME PREV
RADIO CHARGE
ESTIMATED REVENUE
SUB TOTAL
$1,239,434.95
$154,940.91
$18,822.91
$147,631.86
$35,498.29
$26,875.65
$38,401.86
$0.00
($89,151.09)
Sl~~9~.132.48
TOTAL
4,10% $1,572,455.33
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
PATROL DEPUTIES
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES
PROPERTY FLEET ASST
EOUIP&MAINT
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2
CRIME PREV
RADIO CHARGE
ESTIMATED REVENUE
SUB TOTAL
$640,203.48
$102,968.77
$12,509.10
$71,933.34
$18,862.21
$21,500.52
$22,145.99
$0.00
($47,736.32)
5849,7(,11.67
TOTAL
4.13%'J8~'~~'7.~Q7
WHITE BEAR TOWN
PATROL DEPUTIES
INVESTIGATION DEPUTIES
PROPERTY FLEET ASST
EOUIP&MAINT
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
TRAFFIC DEPUTY #2
CRIME PREV
RADIO CHARGE
ESTIMATED REVENUE
SUB TOTAL
$565,575.56
$64,819.89
$7,874.61
$64,977.28
$15,981.98
$10,750.26
$16,756.49
$000
($40,127.61)
S71U,UIlJ.H2
TOTAL
4.11 %: $706,608.46
CONTRACT ESTIMA TE
4,14 %: ~.~~?Q~~?Q~:~8 ...
3/19/2007
$1,182,467.02
$147,833.41
$17,683.65
$143,784.20
$43,468.57
$25,635.00
$36,830.38
$0.00
($87,217.27)
$1,510,482.94
$610,770.67
$98,245.35
$11,751.99
$70,058.58
$23,091.59
$20,508.00
$21,239.72
. $0.00
($46,690.35)
$808,975.55
$539,576.11
$61,846.45
$7,398.00
$63,283.81
$19,568.66
$10,254.00
$16,070.77
$0.00
($39,255.01)
$678,742.79
$5,290,724,08
$1,119,811.27
$147,480.41
$18,973.46
$132,803.56
$31,422.59
$24,373.38
$35,232.29
$0.00
($85,349.72)
$1,424,747.24
$578,538.17
$98,010.76
$12,609.15
$64,708.28
$16,727.54
$21,936.04
$20,318.12
$0.00
($45,826.23)
$767,021.83
$511,057.61
$61,698.77
$7,937.59
$58,450.89
$14,141.96
$9,749.35
$15,373.46
$0.00
($38,412.12)
$639,997.51
$4,985,555.33
$1,096,506.83
$144,671.08
$18,765.52
$125,108.24
$28,875.46
$16,430.83
$34,611.13
$0.00
($63,194.25)
$1,381,774.82
$566,520.94
$96,143.77
$12,470.96
$60,958.75
$15,535.94
$13,144.66
$19,959.91
$0.00
($44,396.47)
$740,338.46
$500,434.55
$60,523.48
$7,850.60
$55,063.95
$12,958.54
$6,572.33
$15,102.42
$0.00
($37,463.40)
$621,042.46
$4,805,564.19
PAGE 2