|
City
Council Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting
March 1, 2010
1. Roll Call
Mayor Klausing called to order
the Roseville City Council special meeting at approximately 6:40 pm and
welcomed everyone.
Mayor Klausing advised that there
were only two items on tonight’s agenda: to adopt a resolution in support of
a noise wall to be constructed on the north side of Highway 36; with the main
purpose of the meeting to continue Strategic Planning discussion with various
City Departments on goals and strategies.
(Voting and Seating Order for March:
Roe; Pust; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing). Mayor Klausing announced, for the
record, that Councilmember Ihlan’s flight had been delayed and she would be
unable to arrive for tonight’s meeting. City Attorney Charles Bartholdi was
also present.
2. Approve Agenda
By consensus, the agenda was approved
as presented.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Klausing called for public
comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
a. Barb McClellan and
John Duffy, representing Calibre Ridge Townhomes
Mr. Duffy reviewed the findings
of Calibre Ridge supporting a noise wall in front of their complex, of no
more than 12’ in height and no closer than 66’ to their buildings. Mr. Duffy
asked that Ramsey County make the appropriate changes to the wall in accordance;
and asked that if any further changes were proposed, that the City and
Calibre Ridge be advised of those plan.
Ms. McClellan noted that it was
also understood that the chain link fence would remain in place, even during
construction and after completion of the wall to keep children from accessing
the pond.
Mayor Klausing noted that the
draft resolution included in tonight’s packet stated that the wall would be
10’ in height.
City Manager Malinen advised
that, after further discussions, both Ramsey County and MnDOT were agreeable
to the 12’ height.
Mayor Klausing noted that, since
this was a special meeting, State Statute required that only those items noticed
were suitable for action of the City Council; however, he noted that this did
not require formal City Council action, and was only seeking support of an
action taken at a previous meeting. Mayor Klausing indicated that the City
Council supported the staff report, allowing staff to proceed accordingly.
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz advised that it was sufficient for the City Council to indicate
their support at tonight’s meeting; and that a resolution would ultimately
come before the City Council at their next regular meeting to be adopted and
forwarded to MnDOT. Mr. Schwartz noted that, in the meantime, plans would
proceed and be forward for formal review to the various agencies.
Discussion included construction
of the wall to tie into natural topography at the corner of Marion Street to
prevent the noise from spilling around the wall and further impacting that
last house; and attempts by staff to notify residents by phone regarding the
revised noise wall height.
City Attorney Bartholdi left the
meeting at this time: approximately 6:48 p.m.
4. Council
Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor
Klausing acknowledged and congratulated Roseville Girls Hockey League on
their recent Class AA win at the State Hockey Tournament, and specific awards
to individual players.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
7.
Approve Consent Agenda
a.
Adopt a Resolution in Support of a Noise Wall to be constructed
on the North Side of Highway 36
As referenced in item 3.a above,
there was no formal action taken on this item at tonight’s meeting.
i.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
9.
General Ordinances for adoption
10.
Presentations
11.
Public Hearings
12.
Business Items (Action Items)
13.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Discuss Strategic Planning with the Administration, Fire and
Police Departments
Mayor Klausing stated that the
purpose of tonight’s special meeting was for Department heads to provide
their comments to the City Council regarding goals and strategies for, as
well as challenges specific to their department, in order to provide a better
dialogue in preparation for the 2011 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process and
prioritizing tax-supported programs.
By way of introduction, City
Manager Bill Malinen advised that each department had utilized the Action
Steps categorized from the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process
and City Council-established priorities for its implementation, providing a
status report based on three areas: those items done, those items ongoing and
those not yet completed. Mr. Malinen advised that further comparisons were
referenced in the 160 priority items identified in the 2010 BFO listings;
Capital Investment Plan (CIP); and also based on challenges specific to each
department from the Department Heads’ perspectives to allow the City Council
to have a broader understanding of day-to-day City operations.
1.
Administration Department
City Manager Malinen reviewed
the Administration Department and those categories, noting that the most significant
challenge for the department was that most of the action steps had relatively
short timelines within a 1-3 year period, making it difficult to position
them all for accomplishment in conjunction with Council identified priorities.
At the request of Councilmember
Johnson, Mr. Malinen advised that the Finance Department was separate from
the Administration Department and would be scheduled along with other
departments at upcoming City Council meetings; and confirmed that City
Council activities and budget was part of Administration, rather than
Finance.
Councilmember Pust sought an
explanation of what was included in citizen recognition programs at City
Council meetings (Ongoing: 1.a.7.b).
Mr.
Malinen advised that this included specific recognition programs for
individuals contributing to the community (i.e., retiring Advisory Commissioners)
and others for their achievements on behalf of the community.
Councilmember
Pust asked, in the day-to-day management of the Administration Department,
how Mr. Malinen used the Imagine Roseville 2025 as a planning document, if it
was used; and if he performed regular evaluations of employees’ work against
those items, or whether employees were performing the same job descriptions
as before the Imagine Roseville 2025 process.
Mr.
Malinen advised that, through ongoing review of the items of the report,
items were delegated among various departments; but it was found that some
could use tweaking and had been reviewed again and brainstormed from a staff
perspective. From a management perspective, Mr. Malinen advised that the
document was probably not used on a day-to-day basis for employee
evaluations, but was inherent in staff’s thought processes in an informal manner.
Mr. Malinen advised that, as initiatives were brought forward, they were
analyzed against the vision, goals and strategies, with action steps weighed
against whether they were consistent with that vision.
At
the request of Councilmember Roe who questioned if everything on the list
went through that vetting process at a staff level, and if the list presented
was all-inclusive from staff’s perspective, Mr. Malinen responded
affirmatively.
Councilmember Roe questioned if
some items no longer needed to be included on the list, if they were not a
priority on the list or for the City Council to avoid confusion and allow
better focus; and whether they should be kept as an idea for the future when
resources and budgets may be less tight.
Discussion ensued related to the
origin of the Action Steps after the Imagine Roseville 2025 visioning
process, with short, medium and long-range priorities established by the City
Council, along with Steering Committee input.
At the request of Councilmember
Johnson, Mr. Malinen confirmed the size of the Administration Department at
5.75 FTE’s: City Manager; Human Resources Director; Communications/Recycling
Specialist: Communications Specialist: Administrative Assistant; and Office
Assistant.
Mr. Malinen clarified the
funding for the department, including tax-based funds from the General Fund;
and approximately twenty percent (20%) funded through cable franchise fees
for communication salaries, recycling fund revenues and grant funds.
Further discussion included
historical reductions in staffing in the Administration Department over the
last 15-20 years, including elimination of the Assistant City Manager (in
approximately 2002) with Administrative staff and the City Manager
compensating for that reduced staffing by absorbing those duties; advantages
in improved productivity with reinstatement of that position, with the City
Council support function requiring significant time; lack of resources
available to effectively and efficiently handle increasing record management
responsibilities; and anticipated increases as performance measurement
applications are implemented.
Additional discussion included
impacts of the 2010 budget that may have negatively impacted the department,
with City Manager Malinen noting that, since the 2010 budget was basically a
continuation of the 2009 budget, the department experienced a fair amount of
cuts in the Human Resources area, with significant reductions or elimination
of on-line training (for diversity, customer service, harassment) that had
previously been a cost-effective way to provide training for participation by
all employees. City Manager Malinen reviewed metropolitan area and
out-of-state training options for specific department employees, offering
insight into the training he thought was most necessary to keep employees
up-to-date with their jobs, based on required training, optional training,
legislative mandates, and interaction with industry peers. City Manager
Malinen opined that, as the City’s most expensive resource was its employees,
it was prudent to keep them up-to-date and knowledgeable, as well as
providing them continuing education as an expression of appreciation for the
work they performed on a daily basis. City Manager Malinen advised that as
training opportunities were presented, they would be presented to Councilmembers
for their approval.
Councilmember Pust questioned
what measurable outcomes were available for the department in terms of the
BFO process; and whether there were items that could be identified for
reduction that could be reallocated for training budgets.
Mr. Malinen advised that all
departments had been tasked with identifying outputs and outcomes, as
previously discussed, and while output could be measured, it was more
challenging for his department as there were few of those types of specific
activities (i.e., quantifying customer contact, while being unable to
identify whether it was a positive or negative contact); industry standards
for the recycling portion; and broader measures for overall management and
support of other departments.
Councilmember Pust expressed
interest in seeing performance measures from administrative staff related to
managing staff, not interaction with residents (i.e., the number of
grievances filed; compliance with Human Resource training and number of staff
signed up for those training opportunities or difficulties in getting
employees to sign up for training, and how they are presented and timelines
for them); and whether employee health insurance questions are answered and
their needs met sufficiently – ways to evaluate how effectively
administration is serving the staff that they manage.
Mr. Malinen advised that an
employee survey was done several years ago to seek that type of input.
Councilmember Pust encouraged
City Manager Malinen to brainstorm within the department to find ways to
improve internal service to staff rather than concentrating on public input,
similar to what a private versus public firm might do.
Councilmember Roe noted that the
public could be informally surveyed at the “point of sale” to determine how
easy the process was to understand, the friendliness of staff serving them
and their overall satisfaction with their experience with City Hall.
Councilmember Roe noted that another measurement was staff longevity and
turnover, and the need to invest in staff training. Councilmember Roe
advised that this was one of the tensions or conflicts in the community
telling the City in the Imagine Roseville 2025 process to invest in staff
development versus funds being unavailable to do so; and the need to identify
development programs and how they impact satisfaction levels.
Councilmember Pust concurred,
opining that if that was a big value in the Imagine Roseville 2025 process,
was the money being spent on that of less value, to eliminate the
inconformity with those goals; and the need to evaluate accomplishments
(i.e., communicating diversity items in various newsletters and the website).
Mr. Malinen noted how the
various components of the Imagine Roseville 2025 process were disseminated to
the public through the City’s newsletter and on the website, including the
annual report of accomplishments as they related to those visions.
Councilmember Roe noted another
way to measure communication to residents of happenings in the City is
polling those attending meetings on how they found out about the meeting, and
how staff was communicating with residents.
City Manager Malinen suggested
increasing the use of webinars for cost-effective training of staff; with
Councilmember Roe clarifying that making those determinations was the focus
of management not the City Council, with the City Council expressing concern
about out-of-town travel.
Related to Strategy D in the
“not yet” section (Item 2.D.3) for more active support of existing
businesses, Councilmember Johnson noted that several new businesses had asked
how they could become more engaged in the community, and sought City Manager
Malinen’s vision for that item.
Discussion included
opportunities with Rotary, Roseville Visitor’s Association (RVA); how to
communicate those options to the business community; involvement in Chamber
of Commerce networks, and the City’s history with various chambers and costs
involved.
Councilmember Roe suggested
receiving feedback from businesses and whether a Business Advisory Commission
was needed for that feedback beyond random comments; cost of that
involvement; and specific strategies for that focus.
Mayor Klausing suggested
refocusing tonight’s discussion on prioritizing and how to fund those
identified priorities, rather than attempting to implement new strategies or
expanding staff expectations.
Councilmember Roe clarified that
the attempt was to better understand what was being done and how it was being
done, not suggesting more things to do, but how to measure performance and if
those high priorities were not being met how to reassign resources from a
lower priority area.
Councilmember Johnson advised
that his intent was to understand the vision of the department, what was
being accomplished and what wasn’t being accomplished, and how those items
would be addressed on a BFO document.
City Manager Malinen noted that
the vision needed to take into consideration the time and/or financial
resources for accomplishment.
Mayor Klausing noted the
constraints of continuing to do more with less, and the need to recognize
staff’s recognition that the City couldn’t be top notch at everything at
current funding levels and limited resources. Mayor Klausing asked Mr.
Malinen if there was some part of administration that would be a lower
priority to make sure effective prioritization was happening, and those
functions that could at the bottom of the priority list.
City Manager Malinen advised
that with attempts to increase communication with the public or media or
staff, it was difficult to reduce that priority; and other functions (i.e.,
elections and records management) were mandatory or statutory and that few
areas remained that could be reduced and/or eliminated.
Mayor Klausing asked that Mr.
Malinen and Department Heads consider this question as the BFO process continued,
where staff could define lower priority items, and where they felt the most
negative impacts.
Councilmember Roe noted that
this exercise provided a good opportunity to determine how to do things
differently particularly in tough budget times; how to define where
duplication was occurring in other departments that could free up resources
(i.e., communication); and if there were items that no longer made sense from
the visions, that they be removed from the list or added on if an idea from
staff and/or the community needed to be incorporated.
City Manager Malinen noted that
all Advisory Commissioners were being tasked with review of the Imagine
Roseville 2025 document at their upcoming meetings.
2.
Fire Department
Acting Fire Chief Tim O’Neill;
Fire Marshal John Loftus; and Shift Commander David Brosnahan were present to
represent the Fire Department.
Acting Chief O’Neill advised that in the department’s review of the Imagine
Roseville 2025 document, and during this transition phase in the department,
they had incorporated a new version of the department’s Strategic Plan, a
DRAFT of which was provided to Councilmembers at tonight’s meeting as a bench
handout. Acting Chief O’Neill advised that this would provide an opportunity
for City Council feedback as to whether the department was near target, and
with the document scheduled for finalization during the summer, would be
available to tie into the BFO process for the 2011 budget cycle.
Related to Strategy 5.A.1.l (in
process category), Councilmember Pust sought a context for pay benefits for
part-time firefighters.
Acting Chief O’Neill advised
that the department currently had seven full-time staff, and 58 part-time
firefighters, with great strides having been made over the last few years in
making the part-time pay rates more competitive with other area departments
($13.32/hour); and changes in the structure to have training and most duties
assigned during scheduled hours to avoid additional time commitments and
other work disruptions for those part-time firefighters.
Councilmember Johnson clarified
that the department employees were no longer volunteers, but part-time staff,
since they were paid a wage.
Discussion included distinctions
for on-call versus volunteer status; permanent scheduled shifts for part-time
firefighters, with the exception of major emergency situations; relief
association benefits for part-time firefighters, but no other part-time
benefits, which is an item under discussion for future consideration to
follow the same part-time benefit model of other part-time City employees,
but not under current budget constraints; and inclusion of the Imagine
Roseville 2025 document in developing the Strategic Plan.
Acting Chief O’Neill reviewed
various categories of the DRAFT Strategic Plan as the department’s leadership
team worked on its strengths and weaknesses earlier this year; proposed
improvement and efficiencies in staffing and training programs; fire station building
facilities, previous facility studies; ongoing issues of the existing
stations, and locations of those stations in consideration of the model now
being operated for department staffing. Acting Chief O’Neill noted the need
to consider current, as well as future long-term needs.
Acting Chief O’Neill sought
future feedback from Councilmembers for the Plan and assured them that
updates would be e-mailed to them as the document was revised and improved
upon.
Mayor Klausing noted his
difficulty in addressing the needs of the public as their elected official,
such as quick response time; and his need to rely on the expertise of the
department’s leadership in identifying areas in need of attention or lacking
equipment or funds.
Discussion included the existing
fire stations and their physical condition; deferred capital expenditures of
$3 – 5 million over the last 5-10 years for building repair and/or
maintenance that could be applied to construction of a new facility; and how
or whether a one station model would work now and in the future, as well as
how it would fit with the proposed staffing model.
Acting Chief O’Neill advised
that the City’s current on-duty staffing handled approximately 96.6% of the
regular calls, and could continue to be done through a one station model, for
the 13 square mile community of Roseville.
Further discussion included
considering service areas outside City boundaries by partnering with
surrounding communities in the future for more cost efficiencies and response
times; with such a shared services model, similar to that with the Lake
Johanna Volunteer Fire Department, included as Goal #5 in the Strategic Plan.
Additional discussion included
partnership perspectives from a department point as well as elected officials
point, in defining who takes the lead and how the joint department could be
structured.
Councilmembers as a body
expressed interest in how this partnership could be developed, with Roseville
taking the lead to see it come to fruition.
Acting Chief O’Neill advised
that a Council directive for consideration of joint services with other
service areas or communities would be helpful; and that most Chiefs were in
agreement that an organization could be implemented, with each party
represented on a Board of Directors that would manage the day-to-day
operations under a Joint Powers Agreement, and that there appeared to be
fewer “turf” issues than anticipated, with the goal for more economy of scale
for stations, equipment and infrastructure, with other cities facing similar
issues to those faced by Roseville, as well as meeting training and mandated
requirements of various agencies (i.e., OSHA); and other models available
that have combined departments.
Further discussion included age
demographics in the department now and in the future; reduced staffing
through attrition; 13 firefighters in Roseville at retirement age or coming
into it within the next three years, causing the City to lose significant
experience; impacts in filling vacancies when residency requirements were
eased several years ago; and ongoing turnover with the part-time position and
other demands for time commitments.
Additional discussion included
the increased calls when the department began to function as a First
Responder EMS services; changes to the staffing model since 2007 and those
anticipated in the future under Goal #2 of the Strategic Plan document;
evaluation of the EMS program since its inception (Goal #6); inclusion of
performance measures for the department to be implemented this year and
incorporate into the BFO process while working with the same budget dollars
as in 2008.
Councilmembers thanked the
Department for their great service; and anticipated their return over the
next 18 months as their evaluations were completed.
Acting Chief O’Neill encouraged
feedback from individual Councilmembers on the Strategic Plan over the next
few months to provide clear direction to the department; to formalize a
committee to establish a timeline for a new fire station yet this year; and
to bring those committee recommendations back to the City Council (Goal #1).
Councilmember Roe opined that it
made sense, through all the analyses, to consider how a shared approach would
fit with a new station, its location and the area to be served; and suggested
that a Roseville approach, as well as a no boundary approach be used to avoid
losing sight of any possibilities.
Councilmember Pust noted the
favorable comments she was hearing from the public on the great leadership
being provided during the transition time; and expressed her appreciation to
the department’s leadership for their work.
Acting Chief O’Neill advised
that the new format would be implemented for monthly and annual reports, and
hoped that it was more useful to the City Council.
Recess
Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:35
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:39 p.m.
3.
Police Department
Acting Police Chief Rick Mathwig,
Lieutenant Lorne Rosand, and Police Services Manager Karen Rubey were present
to represent the Police Department.
Acting Chief Mathwig reviewed
the accomplishments of the department as highlighted in the agenda materials
(i.e., translating literature into other languages; mentoring; seminars for
various cultures within the community; and cooperative work with the Human
Rights Commission); and noted additional documents in the packet, including a
breakdown of capital improvements, as well as a document dated March 2010 and
entitled, “Police Department Efforts – Above and Beyond” providing basic services
(i.e., responding to calls, investigations and follow-ups, crime prevention,
animal control); and how many of those additional efforts fit into the
Imagine Roseville 2025 categories.
Discussion of impacts to the
department with the 2010 budget included significant reductions in training
to ensure better educated officers were responding to the many and diverse
calls received by the Department; with Acting Chief Mathwig expressing hope
that no further reductions were necessary to further negatively impact the
quality of officers and their respective training to do their job effectively
and efficiently. Acting Chief Mathwig noted that much of the officer
training was basic and periodically mandated by the State of Minnesota, but
that other training provided for a higher quality department and significantly
impacted the quality of work being done for the community.
Discussion included references
to the “Dick” case in 1997/98 and how lack of training had significant
impacts on that case not being prosecuted; safety implications to officers
and others in reduced training; basic training for interviewing, crime scene
processing and DNA, as well as further training in leadership skills for
supervisors and for continuing education opportunities for officers in their
careers to ensure they’re trained for real life experiences.
Further discussion included
shift revisions for additional efficiencies, with more restructuring
forthcoming to increase shifts to 12 hours in order to have more officers
available and working during the higher crime periods, in addition to
assigning a few officers to a high impact team to work with the Records
Management team in determining high incident and repetitive crime areas for
increased scrutiny and patrolling, modeled from a University of MN and City
of Maplewood model.
Additional discussion included
the number of officers that were bilingual; other resources to meet the
diverse languages in the community, including a “Language Line,” and
resources in other departments and agencies through networking; recruitment
of officers from other cultural communities to enhance language opportunities
through the Reserves; and block captains and/or elders in those diverse
cultural groups to provide a different perception of law enforcement that
those cultures are used to experiencing, that officers were here to help, not
to arrest.
Further discussion included the
department’s rolling stock; current mileage; continuing industry standards
for fleet turnover at 75,000 miles with no trends being found for higher mile
vehicles; impacts to the department in losing funding for the Bike Patrol and
Deputy Chief position; and how the department had repurposed positions to
have a greater impact to crime upfront.
Acting Chief Mathwig advised that
he was not supportive of on-line reporting for minor crime; as that did
nothing to enhance the public’s perception of their safety, nor did it serve
the victim when any crime was perceived as major to them.
Acting Chief Mathwig further
advised that there was a movement across the nation to increase fees for
false alarms, based on how time-consuming that area was in tying up officers
for those false alarms, with over 90% of those intrusion alarms being false.
Acting Chief Mathwig advised that Lt. Rosand was currently looking into the
specifics to recommend charging for any false alarms after the third one in a
calendar year.
At the request of Mayor Klausing,
Acting Chief Mathwig addressed other impacts to the department due to recent
budget reductions, including loss of the 50th officer position as
a traffic officer, with one of the most repetitive public concerns that of
speeding; and replacement of equipment that is recycled from squad to squad
over the years and their deterioration after continued use with their replacement
currently funded through grants, awards and gifts for those approximately 90%
equipment replacements.
Further discussion included
previous service provided to Falcon Heights and Lauderdale, now being
provided by St. Anthony; and cooperative efficiencies through shared services
for emergency communication; SWAT services; shared narcotics officer with
Ramsey County; and partnering with the City of New Brighton for the Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers; mutual aid in staffing community
events; and other cooperative ventures.
Additional discussion included
geographical aspects in patrolling the community and lack of barriers in
patrol due to cooperation among departments.
Councilmember Roe questioned
some of those items identified as discontinued due to insufficient funds and
whether they needed to be included on the list anymore.
Acting Chief Mathwig advised
that this exercise was a brainstorming effort, and if it was a necessary
function, the department would provide that function; however, he noted that
things, such as the liaison officer, was a very expensive option, and should
be put on hold or discontinued, as it was not an option at this time.
Councilmember Johnson expressed
appreciation for the monthly report; but opined he would like to see it publicized
more.
Discussion ensued regarding
previous discussions in 2008 related to a retail or fraud officer at
Rosedale, with 90% of the calls to Rosedale related to theft (from vehicle,
person or shoplifting); with comparison information with other malls unknown
at this time.
Lt. Rosand provided his
perspective of the disheartening youth issues experienced at the mall, and
the need for a police presence to detract them. Lt. Rosand clarified that
most of the problems were not with local youth, but from outside the
community arriving by public transportation, with a transit hub located
adjacent to the AMC Theater at Rosedale Mall; with youth coming to the mall
to hang out, getting bored, resulting in disorderly conduct and/or theft and
unresponsive to mall security.
Further discussion included the
City and Rosedale partnering to have a police presence there, while
recognizing that due to cost constraints that it would need to be a partnership.
Acting Chief Mathwig provided a
history of previous discussions with mall owners and managers regarding a
cost-sharing agreement (2008); and referenced arrangements other communities
have with other malls, such as the City of Bloomington and the Mall of
America with a percentage of sales used annually to fund a certain number of
officers, based on the need. Acting Chief Mathwig advised that he had
reviewed various grant opportunities in the past as a funding resource, and
noted that it was a political issue, since they considered themselves as
substantial taxpayers already without further fees.
Councilmember Roe sought
additional information as to the percentage of police resources being used to
deal with those calls; and if their taxes were proportionate; or if there was
a disproportionate percentage, there was a need to provide adequate
protection to those shopping or using the mall. Councilmember Roe clarified
that he was requesting information on the percentage of the City’s resources,
not just the percentage of the calls.
Acting Chief Mathwig clarified
that he wanted to give credit to those anchor stores that have loss
protection elements in place; and expressed their cooperative partnership
with the department.
Councilmember Pust noted that, besides
a financial cost, there was also a cost to the community, not just one of
perception, but to ensure the safety at the mall as well as in the broader
community.
Councilmembers were of a
consensus that additional partnership opportunities with mall representatives
be considered.
Acting Chief Mathwig advised
that, in the late 1980’s to 1998, there was a retail crime unit working areas
specific to Har Mar Mall and Rosedale, providing a police presence, but it
had then been dismantled. Acting Chief Mathwig advised that there would be
an apparent increase in crimes if a police presence were reinstated, as many
crimes went unreported at this time, with not more crime, just
under-reporting.
14.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
15.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
16. Adjourn
The meeting
was adjourned at approximately 9:30 pm.
|