Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda CC 05.10.2016 Workshop
Notice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the City of Georgetown, Texas M ay 1 0, 2 0 1 6 The Ge orgetown City Council will meet on May 1 0, 2 016 at 3:00 PM at Council Chambers, 101 E. 7th St., Geo rge to wn, Texas The City o f Georgetown is committed to co mpliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you re quire assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or ac c ommo datio ns will be provided upo n request. P lease contact the City Se c retary's Office, least four (4 ) days prio r to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop - A Prese ntation from the Animal She lte r Adviso ry Board regarding curre nt impro vements and ac c omplishments at the Animal Shelter -- Jackie Carey, Animal Shelter Manager and Wayne Nero, Chief o f P olice B Budget - Employee Compensation & Benefits -- Tadd Phillips, Dire c to r of Human Resources C Prese ntation and discussion regarding Po lice P atrol Staffing Study -- Wayne Nero, Chief of Po lic e Exe cutive Se ssion In compliance with the Open Meetings Ac t, Chapter 551, Government Co de , Verno n's Texas Codes, Annotate d, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular se ssio n. D Se c . 55 1.0 71 : Consul tati on wi th Atto rney - Advice fro m attorney about pending or co ntemplated litigation and o ther matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Co uncil, including agenda item - Sne ed Industrial Agreement - PUC Docket #45596 - PEC v. GUS - PUC Docket #45866 - LCRA TSC CCN Application Se c . 55 1.0 72 : Del i berati on Regardi ng Real Property - Discussion of the appraised values of real pro perty regarding the Rive ry Blvd. Extension Project Se c . 55 1.0 74 : Personnel Matter s - City Manager, City Attorney, City Se c retary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluatio n, reassignment, duties, discipline, o r dismissal - City Secretary Evaluation - Municipal Court Judge Evaluatio n Se c . 55 1.0 87 : Del i berati on Regardi ng Eco nomi c Devel opment Ne go ti ati ons - Tamiro Plaza Phase 2 Adjournme nt Page 1 of 88 Ce rtificate of Posting I, Shelley No wling, City S ecretary for the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , do hereby c ertify that this Notic e o f Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lac e read ily acc es s ib le to the general pub lic at all times , o n the _____ day of _________________, 2016, at __________, and remained so p o s ted for at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the s cheduled time of s aid meeting. __________________________________ Shelley No wling, City S ecretary Page 2 of 88 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop May 10, 2016 SUBJECT: P resentation fro m the Animal Shelter Advisory Bo ard regarding current improveme nts and accomplishments at the Animal Shelter -- Jackie Carey, Animal Shelter Manager and Wayne Nero, Chief of P olice ITEM SUMMARY: Georgetown Animal Shelter has seen considerable gro wth in the 10 years at our curre nt location. As the City grows, the Animal Shelter is go ing to face many challenges. With careful planning and foretho ught we hope to be proactive and avoid having to be re active. FINANCIAL IMPACT: To be determined SUBMITTED BY: Jackie Carey, Animal Shelter Manager ATTACHMENT S: Description Animal Shelter Advis o ry Bo ard P res entation Page 3 of 88 GEORGETOWN ANIMAL SHELTER Workshop with City Council May 10, 2016 Page 4 of 88 Hours of Operation Monday – Friday 11a – 6p CLOSED Wednesdays Saturday/Sunday 12p – 4p Page 5 of 88 Objectives •Animal Shelter vs Animal Services •Programs •Services •Projected Growth and Statistics •Friends of the Georgetown Animal Shelter •Volunteers •Future Challenges Page 6 of 88 Public Safety Adoptability No-Kill Community Page 7 of 88 Services Provided •FREE Spay/Neuter Clinics (for cats) •3 per year •Low-Cost Vaccine Clinics (free microchips) •5 per year •Public Assist Program- Low Cost Options •Pet city licensing/registration – Rabies Control •P.A.W.S. Pets Are Worth Saving Program •partnership with GPD/GFD •Ordinance enforcement •Cruelty/neglect •Complaints •Wildlife concerns (trapping) Page 8 of 88 Shelter Programs = Adoptions •Temperament Testing –Match-Up II •Dogs Playing For Life •Working Minds obedience training •Barn Cat/APA program- Feral cat population control •PetSmart partnership •Unique Breed Club – Pets of the Week •Rescue Coordinating Page 9 of 88 1443 1497 1248 1460 1546 1671 1664 1863 1889 633 604 553 600 683 822 687 904 1004 350 357 344 314 353 318 438 426 464 503 412 278 498 304 261 323 247 103 Historical Trend FY 2006- 2015 Total Impounded Total Adopted/Transferred to Rescue Total Returned To Owner Total Euthanized 80% DECREASE in total animals Euthanized Page 10 of 88 24,583 26,300 15,057 19,725 1889 2465 2015 2018 City of Georgetown 2015 – 2018 Projected Population Growth Homes/Apartments Owned Dogs/Cats Impounded Dogs/Cats Projected 30% increase of animals impounded in only 3 years! Page 11 of 88 35% 31% 26% 66% 13% 24% 1% 42% 5% 40% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Adopted Euthanized Returned To Owner Died in Kennel ASPCA National WCRAS Georgetown Outcome of Dogs in Shelters 2014- 2015 Check out those Return to Owner Stats!! Page 12 of 88 37% 41% 5% 61% 3% 4% 6% 63% 6% 9% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Adopted Euthanized Returned To Owner Died in Kennel ASPCA National WCRAS Georgetown Outcome of Cats in Shelters 2014- 2015 Page 13 of 88 Friends of the Georgetown Animal Shelter FRIENDS is the shelter’s non-profit counterpart who supports the shelter by raising money for projects not covered by the city’s budget. •Art for Animals •Pooches and Patron •Hops for Hounds •Garage Sales •Paws for Mardi Gras •Drink Wine Save Puppies •Open Houses/Kitten Showers Page 14 of 88 Friends of the Georgetown Animal Shelter Large Purchases Page 15 of 88 Catio $50,000 Page 16 of 88 Awnings $12,000 Page 17 of 88 Cat Play Equipment $10,400 Page 18 of 88 Trailer Graphics $5,000 Page 19 of 88 $9,000 Cat Condos Page 20 of 88 $6,000 Dishwasher Page 21 of 88 $10,000 Glass Walls Page 22 of 88 Total purchases made by Friends of the Georgetown Animal Shelter 2011-2015 $151,390 Page 23 of 88 Volunteers •150 active volunteers (6 VIPs) •Offsite adoption events •Dog walking/training •Cat chores and socialization •Small repairs/maintenance •Transporting/fostering •Dog baths/grooming •Cottages Alzheimer's facility •Photos/Videos for online use •Administrative tasks Page 24 of 88 Page 25 of 88 •Regular volunteers: 150 People = 3555 hours •VIPS: 6 People =2349 hours Last Year’s Volunteer Hours Savings to the city = $100,803!! Page 26 of 88 Future Challenges Increased Growth = Increased Demands Page 27 of 88 Comments? Questions? Page 28 of 88 Kelly Thyssen (Chair) Mary Treuter (Vice Chair) Michael Simpson (Secretary) Anna Eby (City Council District 1) Susanne Paclebar Lyle Warden, DVM Jackie Carey (Animal Services Manager) Page 29 of 88 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop May 10, 2016 SUBJECT: Budget - Emplo ye e Co mpensation & Benefits -- Tadd Phillips, Director of Human Re so urces ITEM SUMMARY: Human Resourc e s staff will review employee co mpensatio n history and current me tho dology. Staff will also review status of the self-insurance fund for employee be ne fits. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA SUBMITTED BY: Tadd Phillips, Human Reso urce Director ATTACHMENT S: Description Bud get - Comp ens atio n & Benefits Pres entatio n Page 30 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget FY2017 Budget: Employee Compensation & Benefits City Council Workshop May 10, 2016 Page 31 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Executive Summary •FY2017 City Manager Proposed Budget will include Compensation & Benefits programs aligned with Fiscal & Budgetary Policy •Compensation –Market (applies to some employees) utilizing updated methodology –Merit / Pay for Performance or Civil Service Step (applies to all employees) •Benefits –Healthy Fund Reserve –Anticipate maintaining current benefits with no additional contributions from City or employees Page 32 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Compensation & Benefits Presentation Outline •Compensation –Overview & Approach –History –FY2017 Planning •Benefits –History –Fund Reserve Status –Current Activities –FY2017 Planning Page 33 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Compensation Overview •Council Strategy: Attract, hire, develop & retain the best people, and compensate them for the value they create •Tactics include establishing and consistently administering a competitive compensation program based on performance results Page 34 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Total Rewards From World at WorkPage 35 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Compensation Approach Fiscal & Budgetary Policy •Competitive Compensation –In order to maintain a competitive pay scale, the City has implemented a Competitive Employee Compensation Maintenance Program to address competitive market factors and other issues impacting compensation. The program consists of: –Annual Pay Plan Review –To ensure the City’s pay system is accurate and competitive within the market, the City will review its pay plans annually for any potential market adjustments necessary to maintain the City’s competitive pay plans. (Market ) –Pay for Performance –Each year the City will fund performance based pay adjustments for regular non‐public safety personnel. This merit‐based program aids in retaining quality employees by rewarding their performance. Pay for Performance adjustments are based on the employee’s most recently completed performance evaluation. (Merit) –Public Safety Steps –Each year the City will fund anniversary step increases for public safety sworn personnel consistent with public safety pay scale design. (Steps) Page 36 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Compensation History –FY2016 •Fire Market Adjustment –January 2016 –4% Firefighter, 2% Driver, 1% all higher ranks •Police Market Adjustment –January 2016 –1% all ranks •Fire & Police Steps –On employee anniversary date from 3% to 1.1% depending on rank Page 37 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Compensation History –FY2016 Non‐Civil Service •Market Adjustments ‐January 2016 –impacts positions with ranges 5% or more below market –Employee increase typically 2%, applied to 117 individuals (27% of non‐Civil Service employees) •Merit Increase –February 2016 –2% Average increase –Based on Performance Evaluation Page 38 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Merit History FY2016 1% 29% 53% 17% 2016 Merit Distribution Below 0% Meets 1% Exceeds 2% Excellent 3% Page 39 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Employee Turnover FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 YTD All 10%10%4.4% Public Safety 4.3%3.3%3.3% Page 40 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget FY2017 Market Summary •New: Defined Central Texas jobs vs Texas Area –Where do we recruit and lose employees? –Most positions (64% of benchmarks) compared to Central Texas –Management and specialized municipal professional positions compared to both Central Texas and Texas Area comparators •Industry specific comparators used selectively: –Bryan Texas Utilities, New Braunfels Utilities, CPS Energy, LCRA, College Station, Waco Page 41 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Market Comparators Central Texas Austin Cedar Park Leander Pflugerville Round Rock Williamson County San Marcos New Braunfels Texas Area Sugar Land Grapevine Denton Flower Mound Page 42 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget FY2017 Market Summary •Reviewing Pay Structures in March/April 2016 •What are we comparing? –Range midpoint to market average midpoint –Actual salary to market average actual used for some executive, single incumbent positions •What do we consider competitive? –Within 5% is considered market competitive –‐5% is considered below market competitive Page 43 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget FY2017 Market Summary •228 Non‐Civil Service job titles •100 Benchmark job titles (44%) Preliminary Results: •Within Market: 72% •Below Market:28% Page 44 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Market Implementation •Benchmarks tied back to non‐benchmarks in job family •Approximately 43 job titles to reclassify impacting 87 employees (20% of non‐Civil Service employees) •Methodology: Page 45 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget FY2017 Market Summary Civil Service Market •Review all ranks against Central Texas comparators •Compare Minimum to minimum –common practice for step systems •Considering changes to structures including early career step acceleration for ranks of Firefighter and Police Officer •Topic of discussion with Chiefs and in Meet & Confer Page 46 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget FY2017 Planning •Plan to continue Competitive Employee Compensation Maintenance Program in order to attract and retain the best people including: –Market –Merit –Steps •Specific recommendations will be developed as part of the City Manager’s proposed budget Page 47 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Employee Benefits Page 48 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Benefits History •Self‐Insurance began January 1, 2014 •Plan year begins January 1, Fiscal year October 1 •Changed administrator/network from Aetna to United HealthCare January 1, 2016 –Significant reduction in stop‐loss and administrative costs –Employee experience has been positive –Too early for good financial data •Expenses significantly under budget in Fiscal 14 & 15 Page 49 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Benefits History •The largest and most volatile expense to the fund are medical and pharmacy claims. Fluctuations occur both seasonally and episodically. Reinsurance, conservative budgeting, and fund reserves are essential to a healthy program. - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 12 months Net Claims Example Page 50 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Self-Insurance Fund Reserve •Existing Fiscal & Budgetary Policy targets $1M by fiscal 2017. •Reached $2.13M at conclusion of fiscal 2015. •How did it grow? –Claims expense well under budget $527,807 –Insurance funds for authorized unfilled positions $919,163 –Expenses charged in depts., corrected for 2015 $300,000 approx. •Do not anticipate reserve to grow again at this level as growth primarily due to one‐time items Page 51 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Current Fund Reserve Status Reserve Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Projected Beginning Balance $2,129,907 IBNR 10% of annual expense*$484,576 10% Premium Stabilization Reserve 10-20% of annual expenses*$969,152 20% Remaining Balance $676,179 *annual expenses = claims, admin, and S/L Page 52 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Current Benefits Activities •Created employee benefits program goals: 1.Maximize employee health 2.Assure competitive and current plan offerings and design 3.Maintain program affordability for City and employees 4.Facilitate employee plan navigation and consumerism 5.Compliance and administration •Staff is working tactical plan built from goals Page 53 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Current Benefits Activities •Soliciting proposals for –Employee clinic feasibility –Employee health intervention program –Wellness tracking software •Will solicit proposals for dental and review funding methodology •Will solicit bids for flexible spending and COBRA administration Page 54 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Early Benefits Projections •We hit our fund reserve target! •Too early to project claims expense under UHC, industry trend: –Administration annual increase 2% –Stop Loss annual increase 15% –Claims annual increase 10% •Based on current known expense trend and fund reserve status, we do not anticipate a need to increase contribution levels from City or employees next fiscal year. •Staff will continuously track projections working closely with consultant. Page 55 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget This Budget Cycle •SI Fund cost will be continuously monitored and projections update through July •Specific recommendations will be developed as part of the City Manager’s proposed budget Page 56 of 88 FY2017 Annual Budget Questions or Comments? Page 57 of 88 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop May 10, 2016 SUBJECT: P resentation and discussio n regarding Police Patrol Staffing Study -- Wayne Nero , Chie f of Po lice ITEM SUMMARY: In April 2016, the Geo rgetown P olice Department (GPD) contracted with the University of No rth Texas for the development of a five-year strategic patrol staffing plan. This study is an update to a report submitted to GPD in April 2015. The impetus for this patrol staffing asse ssment and projection is to understand the impac t expected population growth will have on police service s pro vided to the co mmunity. Not only has the City of Geo rgeto wn seen significant population growth over the past 15 years, but the growth is expected to continue and eve n accelerate as new reside ntial developments come into the City of Geo rgetown. Various methodologies were employed during the study inc luding analysis of existing departmental and city data and reports, assessment of national best practices applicable to GPD, and the development of statistical models to validate and project patro l staffing needs. The project team was tasked with develo ping a five year strate gic patrol staffing plan for GP D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Wayne Nero ATTACHMENT S: Description Georgetown P D Strategic Patro l S taffing Plan Georgetown P D City Counc il Works hop Pres entation Page 58 of 88 Report Prepared By: Eric J. Fritsch, Ph.D. Professor and Chair University of North Texas Department of Criminal Justice 1155 Union Circle #305130 Copyright © 2016 Denton, TX 76203-5017 University of North Texas (940) 565-4954 Denton, TX 76203 fritsch@unt.edu All rights reserved Georgetown Police Department Five-Year Strategic Patrol Staffing Plan Final Report May 2016 Page 59 of 88 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I: Patrol Division Staffing 2 Modeling Patrol Staffing Needs 2 Purpose of the Base Model: Establishing the Concurrent Validity of the MAPP 4 Building the Base Model: MAPP Variables 4 Calls for Service and Service Time Variables 5 Self-Initiated and Administrative Time Variables 7 Response Time Variables 8 Immediate Availability Variables 9 Visibility Variables 10 Weights for Performance Objectives 11 Leave Percentage 11 Two Officer Units 12 Results of the Base MAPP Modeling Process 12 Section II: Strategic Staffing Plan – Options for Staffing the Patrol Function 14 Building the Strategic Staffing Plan for Patrol 14 GPD’s Future: Points to Consider 18 Page 60 of 88 ii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Patrol Division Staffing 2 Table 2: Annual Number of Calls for Service by Priority Level 5 Table 3: Base MAPP Input Values for Average Service Time for Calls for Service by Priority Level 6 Table 4: Base MAPP Input Values for Number of Back-up Unit Responses by Priority Level 7 Table 5: Base MAPP Input Values for Average Service Time for Back-up Unit Responses by Priority Level 7 Table 6: Base MAPP Input Values for Self-Initiated and Administrative Time 8 Table 7: Base MAPP Input Values for Response Time Variables 9 Table 8: Base MAPP Input Values for Immediate Availability Variables 10 Table 9: Base MAPP Input Values for Visibility Variables 11 Table 10: Base MAPP Input Values for Performance Objective Weights 11 Table 11: MAPP Variables and Determination of Staffing Needs 13 Page 61 of 88 1 In April 2016, the Georgetown Police Department (GPD) contracted with the University of North Texas for the development of a five-year strategic patrol staffing plan. This study is an update to a report submitted to GPD in April 2015 by utilizing 2015 data, where available. In particular, 2015 data were available on calls for service by priority level, back-up unit responses by priority level, and response times by priority level. The impetus for this patrol staffing assessment and projection is to understand the impact expected population growth will have on police services provided to the community. Not only has the City of Georgetown seen significant population growth over the past 15 years, but the growth is expected to continue and even accelerate as new residential developments come into the City of Georgetown. According to the City of Georgetown Planning Department, the City of Georgetown is expected to increase from 58,075 residents in 2016 to 67,418 in 2020. The projected population growth continues with an estimated 81,239 residents in 2025 and 96,567 in 2030. Various methodologies were employed during the study including analysis of existing departmental and city data and reports, assessment of national best practices applicable to GPD, and the development of statistical models to validate and project patrol staffing needs. The project team was tasked with developing a five year strategic patrol staffing plan for GPD. This report is structured in two primary sections and provides the reader with data, information, and analysis that lead to recommendations relevant to the strategic patrol staffing plan of the Georgetown Police Department. The two sections are as follows: • Section I: Patrol Division Staffing and • Section II: Strategic Staffing Plan – Options for Staffing the Patrol Function. Page 62 of 88 2 SECTION I: PATROL DIVISION STAFFING This report specifically focuses on the uniformed patrol function within the GPD Patrol Division and the number of patrol officers needed over the next five years. Table 1 illustrates the current patrol staffing levels within the division. There are currently 32 authorized patrol officers in the GPD Patrol Division. Table 1 – Patrol Division Staffing Position Classification Authorized Personnel Patrol Officer Sworn 32 Total: 32 MODELING PATROL STAFFING NEEDS The primary issue addressed in this report focuses on the question: How many sworn police officers should be assigned to patrol in the Georgetown Police Department (GPD) through fiscal year 2020-21? The methodology employed to answer the above question was the use of the Model for the Allocation of Patrol Personnel (MAPP). MAPP is a validated allocation model created by the author and has been successfully used in other cities and jurisdictions to accurately project the number of officers required in patrol, utilizing variable service level schemes and performance objectives.1 The MAPP is designed to determine the number of officers that need to be assigned to patrol based on established performance objectives. The model first determines the number of officers needed to answer calls for service and then builds upon that number to ensure that enough officers are assigned to patrol so that performance objectives can be met. There are six performance objectives for patrol used in this model. Each is discussed below. 1 The original version of MAPP was built and tested by the author in 2000. Earlier versions of the model were featured in the Executive Issues Seminar Series which was sponsored by the Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas as well as training provided by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board. Most recently, the MAPP was utilized in comprehensive staffing studies for the Allen TX, Denton, TX, DeSoto TX, El Paso TX, Elk Grove CA, Eugene OR, Fullerton CA, McKinney TX, Midlothian TX, Richardson TX, Riley County KS, Rowlett TX, and Santa Ana CA Police Departments. The web-based MAPP is used by police and sheriff departments throughout the country through an agreement with the University of North Texas. Dr. Fritsch has also authored a book entitled Police Patrol Allocation and Deployment and published by Pearson Prentice Hall, the only book on the market dedicated to the assessment of police patrol staffing issues as well as a research methods book entitled Applied Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology, published by McGraw-Hill. Page 63 of 88 3 Ability to meet response time goals for Priority “P” calls for service It is crucial for GPD officers to be geographically disbursed throughout the community so they are able to respond rapidly to Priority “P” calls. Priority “P” calls involve crimes in-progress and incidents that put citizens in imminent danger where rapid response matters. These incidents are critical, where minutes, and even seconds, can have a major impact on the outcome of the incident. Rapid response to Priority “P” calls for service can increase the probability of arrest of the suspect at the scene of the offense, decrease injuries suffered by the victim, decrease property loss and destruction, and deescalate the situation due to officer presence. It is imperative in order to meet this objective that officers must be immediately sent to the scene once the dispatcher has obtained sufficient information regarding the nature of the call and that officers respond rapidly. The MAPP takes into account the number of officers that need to be assigned to patrol in order to meet response time goals to Priority “P” calls. Ability to meet response time goals for Priority 2 calls for service It is also important for officers to respond quickly to Priority 2 calls to ensure the situation does not escalate into a more serious incident. Therefore, the MAPP takes into account the number of officers that need to be assigned to patrol in order to meet response time goals to Priority 2 calls. Ability to meet response time goals for Priority 3 calls for service Although these calls are not as critical, it is also important for officers to be able to respond to Priority 3 calls in a reasonable amount of time primarily for citizen satisfaction purposes. Therefore, the MAPP takes into account the number of officers that need to be assigned to patrol in order to meet the department’s response time goal for Priority 3 calls. Having an officer available to immediately respond to a Priority “P” call GPD must have officers available who can immediately respond to a Priority “P” call for service. If all on-duty officers are busy on other calls for service and activities, then the responses to Priority “P” calls will be delayed. In order to ensure sufficient immediate availability, a performance objective is set in the MAPP for the percentage of Priority “P” calls for which there should be at least one officer available to respond. This model then takes that percentage into account in determining the number of officers that need to be assigned to patrol. Visibility of officers The public, as they carry out their daily activities, likes to see police officers. They also like to see police officers in their neighborhoods. It is important for the police to be visible to citizens in order to make citizens feel safe and to deter potential criminal activity. Therefore, the MAPP sets visibility objectives for patrol and determines how many officers need to be assigned to patrol to meet these objectives. Page 64 of 88 4 Officer Self-Initiated and Administrative Time The MAPP also takes into account additional performance objectives that are essential to the patrol function. First, officers are expected to spend a certain percentage of their on-duty time performing self-initiated activities such as enforcing traffic violations, stopping suspicious persons, and patrolling locations known for criminal activity. Second, officers spend a certain percentage of their time on administrative activities as well such as activities related to the start and end of each patrol shift as well as meal breaks. The MAPP accounts for these additional activities performed by officers when determining the number of officers that need to be assigned to patrol. PURPOSE OF THE BASE MODEL: ESTABLISHING THE CONCURRENT VALIDITY OF THE MAPP The initial objective in the modeling process was to develop a valid mathematical model that replicates the current conditions of patrol in GPD by building a base MAPP. Validity addresses the accuracy of the modeling process and refers to the extent to which the MAPP is able to measure the current conditions of patrol in GPD. Although the validity of the MAPP has been demonstrated in prior studies, it is critical to reassess its validity as it applies to GPD patrol. The validity of the MAPP as it applies to GPD patrol is tested by building a base MAPP as described in the next section of this report. By utilizing the data presented in the next section, if the base MAPP, through a complex series of statistical computations and algorithms, can identify the current number of officers assigned to GPD patrol, then the concurrent validity of the MAPP is demonstrated. In other words, there is concurrent validity if the number of patrol officers needed in GPD according to the base MAPP is the same as the number of patrol officers assigned to GPD at the time of the analysis. Concurrent validity is a complex and objective means of determining the validity of the MAPP. As demonstrated in the next section, the research team was successful in building a valid base MAPP and establishing the concurrent validity of the MAPP as it applies to GPD. Establishing concurrent validity verifies the accuracy of the MAPP and its ability to be used to accurately determine GPD patrol staffing needs in the future. BUILDING THE BASE MODEL: MAPP VARIABLES The initial objective in the modeling process was to build a base MAPP which reflects the current conditions of patrol in GPD. A total of 37 variables were used in the development of the base MAPP for GPD. In this section, each of the variables is discussed along with the data assessed to arrive at their values. Page 65 of 88 5 Calls for Service and Service Time Variables The main concept behind the MAPP is to account for all activities performed by GPD patrol officers and the amount of time it takes to perform these activities. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to assess calls for service in the City of Georgetown. The data assessed for calls for service include dispatched calls only since data on self-initiated and administrative activities are accounted for in a separate part of the MAPP. The calls for service data were provided to the research team by GPD personnel and include all calls for service, by priority level, for calendar years 2011-2015. The MAPP input values for calls for service are illustrated in Table 2. The values for 2015 were used in the development of the base MAPP. As illustrated in Table 2, there was a reduction in the number of Priority “P” calls for service and a substantial increase in Priority 2 calls for service from 2014-2015. These changes are partially due to the reprioritization of 911 hang-up calls. Until April 2015, 911 hang-up calls were classified as a Priority “P” call for service. The GPD command staff reclassified 911 hang-up calls to Priority 2 in April 2015 because a significant number of the 911 hang-up calls received by GPD come from wireless phones which plot a very general location for the call as opposed to a landline which plots a specific address. The GPD patrol officers respond to the general area but typically do not find anything since the specific location of the 911 hang-up is unknown. In 2015, there were 1,549 911 hang-up calls categorized as Priority 2 calls for service by GPD thus accounting for much of the difference in the number of Priority 2 calls from 2014-2015. Table 2 –Annual Number of Calls for Service by Priority Level MAPP Variable 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Used in Base MAPP Annual Number of Priority “P” CFS 1,907 2,031 2,274 2,381 1,994 Annual Number of Priority 2 CFS 5,968 6,998 7,469 7,532 9,520 Annual Number of Priority 3 CFS 9,661 10,730 9,721 9,741 10,583 Total 17,536 19,759 19,464 19,654 22,097 Service time is calculated based on the elapsed time from when an officer is en route to the scene to when the officer clears the call. It includes the time spent on each call by the primary unit assigned the call. The average service time for calls for service data were provided to the research team by GPD personnel and include the average service time, by priority level, for calendar year 2014. Table 3 shows the average service time for calls for service for each priority level as entered into the base MAPP. Page 66 of 88 6 Table 3 – Base MAPP Input Values for Average Service Time for Calls for Service by Priority Level MAPP Variable 2014 Average Service Time for Priority “P” Calls 51 minutes, 35 seconds Average Service Time for Priority 2 Calls 30 minutes, 29 seconds Average Service Time for Priority 3 Calls 49 minutes, 2 seconds Call for Service Data – Back-up Units Since the goal of the MAPP is to account for all patrol activity time, it is necessary to account for the time officers spend backing up other patrol units. Data on the annual back-up unit responses by priority level in 2014 were unable to be easily extracted from the GPD records management system. Therefore, the research team utilized a multiplier factor to make projections on the number of back-up unit responses in 2014 by priority level. The multiplier factor was developed by taking a random sample of 100 calls for service in 2014 for each priority level and determining the number of back up unit responses for each call. These values were then used to determine the percentage of calls for service, by priority level, which receive a back-up unit response. Of the 100 randomly selected Priority “P” calls for service assessed, each Priority “P” call for service received 1.43 back-up units. Since Priority “P” calls for service are the most serious calls received by GPD, all Priority “P” calls receive at least one back-up unit while others receive 2 or more back-up unit responses (e.g., major accident with multiple injuries). The multiplier factor for Priority “P” calls was 1.43 so the number of Priority “P” calls for service in 2015 illustrated in Table 2 (i.e., 1,994) was multiplied by 1.43 to determine the total number of back-up unit responses in 2015 as reflected in Table 4. The same methodology was followed to determine the number of back -up unit responses to Priority 2 and 3 calls for service. Back-up responses are less common for Priority 2 and 3 calls for service due to the reduced severity of the call. Of the random sample of 100 Priority 2 calls for service in 2014, 73 received a back-up response, while 21 of the 100 Priority 3 calls for service in 2014 received a back-up response. Therefore, the multiplier factor for Priority 2 was 0.73 and the multiplier factor for Priority 3 was 0.21 (see Table 4). The identified multiplier factor allows one back-up unit response for 73% of the Priority 2 calls for service and one back-up unit response for 21% of the Priority 3 calls for service. These percentages, along with the multiplier factor for Priority “P” calls for service, were then used, in addition to the data previously illustrated in Table 2, to determine the input values for the base MAPP on the annual number of back-up unit responses by priority level (see Table 4). Page 67 of 88 7 Table 4 – Base MAPP Input Values for Number of Back-up Unit Responses by Priority Level MAPP Variable Calls for Service - 2015 Multiplier Factor Back-up Responses - 2015 Annual Number of Priority “P” Back-up Responses 1,994 1.43 2,851 Annual Number of Priority 2 Back-up Responses 9,520 0.73 6,950 Annual Number of Priority 3 Back-up Responses 10,583 0.21 2,222 In addition to the number of back-up unit responses, it is necessary to account for the service time of these back-up unit responses as well. Since data on the annual back-up unit responses by priority level in 2014 were unable to be easily extracted from the GPD records management system, the service time for the back-up unit responses could not be extracted either. Therefore, the average service time for the primary unit responses illustrated in Table 3 was used as the back-up unit response time as well. This allows each back-up unit to remain on the scene for the same length of time as the primary unit. Table 5 shows the average service time for back-up unit responses for each priority level as entered into the base MAPP. Table 5 – Base MAPP Input Values for Average Service Time for Back-up Unit Responses by Priority Level MAPP Variable 2014 Average Back-up Time for Priority “P” Calls 51 minutes, 35 seconds Average Back-up Time for Priority 2 Calls 30 minutes, 29 seconds Average Back-up Time for Priority 3 Calls 49 minutes, 2 seconds Self-Initiated and Administrative Time Variables The self-initiated time an officer spends on-duty is also taken into consideration in the development of the MAPP. This includes time in which an officer can target “hot spots,” perform directed patrol activities, participate in community policing and problem solving activities, stop suspicious individuals, and make traffic stops, as well as other activities. In order to build the base MAPP and replicate the current state of affairs in GPD patrol, the total number of self-initiated activities performed by patrol officers and the total service time of these activities in calendar year 2014 were assessed and provided to the research team by GPD personnel. Accounting for the leave rate which is discussed later in this report, the research team calculated the percentage of each patrol hour which is spent on self-initiated activities. It was determined that, on average, 15.67% of each patrol hour is spent on self-initiated activities; 9.40 minutes per hour per officer (see Table 6). Page 68 of 88 8 It is important to note that this value represents the actual time patrol officers spent on self-initiated activity in 2014. It is not a reflection of the actual time patrol officers had available to them to perform self-initiated activities. In other words, it is not a reflection of total unobligated time; time in which patrol officers are not answering calls for service. Based on an internal assessment completed by GPD personnel in 2014, unobligated time is estimated at 60% of each patrol shift, on average. It is expected that the percentage of unobligated time has decreased since this internal assessment since calls for service significantly increased from 2014-2015. Table 6 – Base MAPP Input Values for Self-Initiated and Administrative Time MAPP Variable 2014 Self-Initiated Time in Minutes per Hour per Officer 9.40 Administrative Time in Minutes per Hour per Officer 11.0 The MAPP also takes into account the administrative time an officer spends on-duty. Administrative time includes meal breaks, vehicle check/maintenance, briefing/roll call, shift preparation activities as well as end of shift activities, and paperwork that is not completed on calls for service. The amount of administrative time spent by GPD patrol officers is set at 11 minutes per hour per patrol officer (see Table 6); 18.33% of each patrol shift. The value of 11 minutes is the midpoint for the values the research team typically sees for administrative time which ranges from 10 to 12 minutes per hour. Response Time Variables In order to determine the number of officers needed to meet the response time goals to calls for service, it is necessary to assess three variables. First, the response time values for GPD must be established. Response times are based on the amount of time from the call being answered in dispatch to arrival of the officer on the scene. Therefore, the response times include the hold time in dispatch while a dispatcher is waiting for an officer to become available to answer the call for service which is why response times are higher for Priority 3 calls (see Table 7). The response time values in Table 7 were provided to the research team by GPD personnel and are based on 2015 data. Second, the response time objectives established in the MAPP require that the size of the geographic area covered by patrol be taken into account. The City of Georgetown encompasses 51.93 square miles. This value was used in the development of the base MAPP (see Table 7). Third, average response speed to emergency and non-emergency calls for service must be determined. Since data on average response speeds were not available from GPD, the average response speeds from previous allocation studies conducted by the research team were used. These response speeds were validated in a study supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Page 69 of 88 9 Administration. The response speeds may seem low but they take into account the time in which the officer must stop at stop lights (for non-emergency activities), slow down due to traffic conditions, as well as other circumstances which cause the patrol vehicle to slow down. The response time data used in the development of the base MAPP are presented in Table 7. Table 7 – Base MAPP Input Values for Response Time Variables MAPP Variable 2015 Response Time for Priority “P” Calls (minutes) 7.03 Response Time for Priority 2 Calls (minutes) 11.03 Response Time for Priority 3 Calls (minutes) 20.45 Area (square miles) 51.93 Average Response Speed to Emergency Calls for Service 39 mph Average Response Speed to Non-Emergency Calls for Service 19 mph Immediate Availability Variables It is critical for GPD to have enough patrol officers on-duty to be able to immediately respond to Priority “P” calls for service. In determining the number of officers needed to have an officer immediately available to respond to an emergency call for service, two variables are taken into account. First, the percentage of time an officer is available to immediately respond to an emergency call for service was determined. Based on norms established in prior staffing assessments, the immediate availability standard was set at 98% which was then used in the base MAPP (see Table 8). For the base MAPP, the percentage of time one patrol officer will be available to immediately respond to a Priority “P” call for service was set at 98% and is certainly a reasonable expectation due to both the rarity and severity of Priority “P” calls. Second, when determining the number of officers needed to provide an immediate response to a Priority “P” call for service, it is assumed that there are occasions when an officer who is on another call for service or self-initiated or administrative activity can clear that call or activity and respond to the Priority “P” call. When the officer is finished responding to the Priority “P” call for service, then the officer can return to the previous call or activity if necessary. Therefore, a certain percentage of calls for service, self-initiated activities, and administrative activities can be preempted if an officer is needed to respond to a Priority “P” call for service. However, it is argued that some calls for service or self-initiated activities cannot or should not be preempted because of the severity of the call for service, potential escalation, or because of citizen satisfaction reasons. The values established for the immediate availability performance objective are illustrated in Table 8. These values are policy decisions/administrative goals which have been standardized by the research team in prior staffing assessments. The preemption values used to build the base MAPP Page 70 of 88 10 for GPD are the averages of the values the research team has seen for the preemption variables in prior staffing assessments. Table 8 – Base MAPP Input Values for Immediate Availability Variables MAPP Variable 2014 Percentage of time an officer will be available to immediately respond to a Priority “P” call 98% Percentage of calls for service that cannot be preempted 55% Percentage of administrative activities that cannot be preempted 15% Percentage of self-initiated activities that cannot be preempted 45% Visibility Variables In order to determine the number of officers needed to meet the visibility performance objective, it is necessary to assess three variables. First, the visibility objective for two types of roadways must be set: 1) highway and arterial roadways, and 2) collector and residential streets. These objectives are based on the answer to the following questions: 1) how often should a patrol officer pass any given point on a highway or arterial roadway? and 2) how often should a patrol officer pass any given point on a collector or residential street? Basically, if a person was to stand on a street, how often should they see a patrol officer? The visibility objectives were set at 4 hours for highway and arterial roadways and 36 hours for collector and residential streets which are the standards set by the research team in prior staffing assessments. This basically means that an officer should pass any given point on a highway or arterial roadway once every 4 hours and any given point on a collector or residential street every 36 hours. It is also important to remember that this performance objective is basically an average. Therefore, there will be some residential roadways in which an officer is seen more frequently than once every 36 hours. Likewise, there will be some residential roadways in which an officer is seen less frequently than the visibility objective. Second, the visibility objectives established in the MAPP require that the number of roadway miles be taken into account. The number of highway/arterial and collector/residential roadway miles was provided to the research team by GPD personnel. The City of Georgetown Streets Department documents 52.2 centerline miles of roadway with a speed limit of greater than 30 mph (i.e., highway/arterial roadways) and 252.3 centerline miles of roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph or less (i.e., collector/residential streets). Third, average patrol speed must be determined. Since average patrol speeds were not available from GPD, the average patrol speeds from previous allocation studies conducted by the research team were used. These patrol speeds were validated in a study supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The patrol speeds may seem low but they take into account the time in which the officer must stop at stop signs, slow down to verify or dispel suspicious circumstances, and identify precursors to criminal activity. The visibility objective data used in the development of the MAPP are presented in Table 9. Page 71 of 88 11 Table 9 – Base MAPP Input Values for Visibility Variables MAPP Variable 2014 Visibility Objective – Highway/Arterial Roadways (hours) 4 Visibility Objective – Collector/Residential Streets (hours) 36 Miles of Highway and Arterial Roadways 52.2 Miles of Collector and Residential Streets 252.3 Average Patrol Speed – Highway/Arterial Roadways 24 mph Average Patrol Speed – Collector/Residential Streets 14 mph Weights for Performance Objectives As discussed, the MAPP focuses on several performance objectives. By weighting the performance objectives, GPD command staff can decide which of the performance objectives is most important and thus should hold more weight in determining the number of officers that need to be assigned to patrol. The weights must add up to 100%. For example, if GPD command staff feels that each performance objective is equally important, then a 20% weight is assigned to each performance objective. A 30% weight was assigned to the response time to Priority “P” calls objective and to the immediate availability objective while a 25% weight was assigned to the patrol visibility objective. A 10% weight was assigned to the response time to Priority 2 calls objective and a 5% weight was assigned to the response time to Priority 3 calls objective (see Table 10). The Priority “P” response time objective and immediate availability objective are most important and thus will hold more weight in the determination of the number of officers that should be assigned to patrol. Table 10 – Base MAPP Input Values for Performance Objective Weights MAPP Variable 2014 Response Time Goal for Priority “P” Calls Objective Weight 30% Immediate Availability Objective Weight 30% Patrol Visibility Objective Weight 25% Response Time Goal for Priority 2 Calls Objective Weight 10% Response Time Goal for Priority 3 Calls Objective Weight 5% Leave Percentage The number of hours of leave taken by a sample of 19 patrol officers for each category of leave (e.g., vacation, sick leave, holiday leave, and training, among others) in 2014 was provided to the research team by GPD personnel. A sample of 19 patrol officers was used because these were the officers who were assigned to patrol during the entirety of 2014, so we excluded officers who had moved into or out of patrol during 2014. We then used the data on the 19 patrol officers to extrapolate to the entire patrol force. In 2014, patrol officers averaged 411.79 hour of leave. Using the value of 411.79 hours of leave per year per patrol officer, the leave percentage was calculated. Page 72 of 88 12 The leave percentage was 19.74% for patrol officers in 2014. The GPD leave percentage is consistent with the average range of 18%-24% established in prior staffing studies conducted by the research team. Two Officer Units The percentage of time patrol units are staffed with two officers was also taken into account in the development of the base MAPP. The use of two officer units is rare in GPD; the value was set at 2% in the base MAPP. RESULTS OF THE BASE MAPP MODELING PROCESS Table 11 illustrates the value for each variable used in the development of the base MAPP which depicts the current state of conditions in GPD patrol based on 2014 and 2015 (i.e., calls for service, back-up unit responses, and response time) data. Using the data presented in Table 11, the base MAPP was able to accurately determine that 32 officers were assigned to GPD patrol in 2015. The patrol staffing levels determined by the base MAPP are equivalent to the 2015 patrol staffing levels within GPD. Therefore, the base MAPP is an accurate reflection of the current conditions in GPD patrol and the concurrent validity (i.e., accuracy) of the MAPP has been established. Validation is always completed to a known factor. In this case, the known factor is the number of GPD patrol officers in 2015 (n=32). Page 73 of 88 13 Table 11 – MAPP Variables and Determination of Staffing Needs Call for Service and Service Time Variables Base MAPP: 2014/2015 Data Variables Changed for 5 Year Strategic Staffing Plan Annual number of Priority “P” CFS (includes primary unit only) – 2015 data 1,994 2,210 (Options 1-3) Annual number of Priority 2 CFS (includes primary unit only) – 2015 data 9,520 19,618 (Options 1-3) Annual number of Priority 3 CFS (includes primary unit only) – 2015 data 10,583 12,365 (Options 1-3) Average service time (minutes) per Priority “P” CFS (includes primary unit only) 51.58 Average service time (minutes) per Priority 2 CFS (includes primary unit only) 30.49 Average service time (minutes) per Priority 3 CFS (includes primary unit only) 49.04 Annual number of back-up unit responses to Priority “P” CFS – 2015 data 2,851 3,160 (Options 1-3) Annual number of back-up unit responses to Priority 2 CFS – 2015 data 6,950 14,323 (Options 1-3) Annual number of back-up unit responses to Priority 3 CFS – 2015 data 2,222 2,597 (Options 1-3) Average service time (minutes) per back-up response to Priority “P” CFS 51.58 Average service time (minutes) per back-up response to Priority 2 CFS 30.49 Average service time (minutes) per back-up response to Priority 3 CFS 49.04 Self-Initiated and Administrative Time Variables Performance objective - Self-initiated time in minutes per hour per officer 9.4 Performance objective - Administrative time in minutes per hour per officer 11.0 Response Time Variables Performance objective – Response time goal for Priority “P” calls (minutes) – 2015 data 7.03 6.0 (Option 2) 5.0 (Option 3) Performance objective – Response time goal for Priority 2 calls (minutes) – 2015 data 11.03 8.0 (Options 2 and 3) Performance objective – Response time goal for Priority 3 calls (minutes) – 2015 data 20.45 15.0 (Options 2 and 3) Area (square miles) 51.93 Average response speed (mph) for emergency activities 39 Average response speed (mph) for non-emergency activities 19 Immediate Availability Variables Performance objective - Percentage of time an officer will be available to immediately respond to a Priority “P” call 98 Percentage of calls for service that cannot be preempted 55 Percentage of administrative activities that cannot be preempted 15 Percentage of self-initiated activities that cannot be preempted 45 Visibility Variables Performance objective - Visibility objective (hours), highway/arterial roadways 4.0 Performance objective - Visibility objective (hours), collector/residential roadways 36.0 Number of miles, highway/arterial roadways 52.2 Number of miles, collector/residential roadways 252.3 Average patrol speed, highway/arterial roadways (mph) 24 Average patrol speed, collector/residential roadways (mph) 14 Weights for Performance Objectives Response time goal for Priority “P” calls objective weight (percentage) 30 Immediate availability objective weight (percentage) 30 Patrol visibility objective weight (percentage) 25 Response time goal for Priority 2 calls objective weight (percentage) 10 Response time goal for Priority 3 calls objective weight (percentage) 5 Leave Percentage Average Percentage of Time On Leave 19.74 Additional Variable Percentage of time patrol units staffed with two officers 2.0 Page 74 of 88 14 SECTION II: STRATEGIC STAFFING PLAN – OPTIONS FOR STAFFING THE PATROL FUNCTION Since concurrent validity was established in the development of the base MAPP, this section of the report focuses on building a strategic staffing plan for GPD patrol and the predictive validity of the MAPP. Predictive validity addresses the ability of the MAPP to accurately determine the results that will occur in the future when additional patrol officers are added in GPD. Since the base MAPP demonstrated the concurrent validity of the MAPP as a mathematical replication of the current conditions within GPD patrol, the MAPP can accurately determine future patrol staffing needs by modifying the variables utilized in the base MAPP. Any of the values in the base MAPP can be modified and the patrol staffing needs to meet the new performance objective accurately determined. Therefore, the predictive validity of the MAPP can be established and the GPD command staff can have confidence that the increases in patrol staffing will result in the intended benefits. BUILDING THE STRATEGIC STAFFING PLAN FOR PATROL As illustrated in Table 11, the rows highlighted in green reflect the variables that were changed from the base MAPP to build the options for the strategic staffing plan for GPD patrol. All other variables remained the same as used in the base MAPP. Three different projected patrol staffing models were built utilizing the MAPP. These models will be illustrated as options that the GPD command staff and City administrators can consider as they determine the ideal patrol staffing levels for their city. In Option 1, the only changes made to the base, validated MAPP were to the calls for service values. From 2011-2015, GPD experienced an average annual increase in Priority “P” calls for service of 1.73%. Priority “P” calls for service are the most serious calls received by Georgetown PD and commonly involve crimes in-progress and incidents that put citizens in imminent danger. During the same time frame, GPD experienced an average annual increase in Priority 2 calls for service of 12.81% while Priority 3 calls have increased annually an average of 2.63%. The research team used these percentage increases to determine the number of calls for service, including primary and back-up unit responses, which GPD will receive over the next five years. With the projected population growth in the City of Georgetown over the next five years, it is reasonable to expect the percentage increase in calls for service (including primary and back-up unit responses) will continue for the next five years. The values used in building the patrol staffing model for Option 1 are illustrated in Table 11 under the heading “Variables Changed for 5 Year Strategic Staffing Plan.” The values are shaded in green and notated with “Options 1-3” meaning the values were used in each option calculated and presented in this section. In sum, an annual increase in calls for service of 1.73% for Priority “P” calls, 12.81% for Priority 2 calls, and 2.63% for Priority 3 calls for service is projected for the next five years and the patrol staffing needs to Page 75 of 88 15 handle these increases were considered in building Option 1. All of the other variables in the base MAPP remained the same in the MAPP developed for Option 1. Option 1 will allow patrol officers to absorb the expected increases in calls for service without negatively impacting other patrol performance objectives (e.g., self-initiated time, response time, and immediate availability to respond to emergency calls for service). The implementation of Option 1 as designed will allow GPD patrol officers to do the following: • Annually respond to an expected 1.73% increase in Priority “P” calls for service, 12.81% increase in Priority 2 calls for service, and 2.63% increase in Priority 3 calls for service; • Respond to Priority “P” calls for service in 7.03 minutes, Priority 2 calls for service in 11.03 minutes, and Priority 3 calls for service in 20.45 minutes; • Have one officer available to immediately respond to a Priority “P” call for service 98% of the time; • Provide a sufficient level of police visibility in the community; • Spend 15.67% of their shift on self-initiated activities; • Spend 18.3% of their shift on administrative activities; and, • Maintain the current leave rate for patrol officers. In Option 2, the percentage increases in calls for service (both primary and back-up unit responses) remain the same as utilized in Option 1. In addition to the increases in calls for service, Option 2 also allows for a decrease in response times. Option 2 allows GPD to increase its capacity to absorb the projected increases in calls for service over the next five years as well as decrease Option 1 Modeling Results: Based on the results of the MAPP for Option 1, 41 patrol officers need to be assigned to the GPD Patrol Division by the end of fiscal year 2020- 21. This is 9 additional patrol officers above the current authorized patrol staffing of 32. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2016-17 – Add 2 patrol officers FY 2017-18 – Add 2 patrol officers FY 2018-19 – Add 1 patrol officer FY 2019-20 – Add 2 patrol officers FY 2020-21 – Add 2 patrol officers Page 76 of 88 16 response times to better align with contemporary staffing norms. In Option 2, response time for Priority “P” calls was decreased from the 2015 actual value of 7.03 minutes in the base MAPP to 6 minutes in the MAPP developed for Option 2. Response time for Priority 2 calls was decreased from the current 11.03 minutes in the base MAPP to a standard of 8 minutes in the MAPP developed for Option 2 while response time for Priority 3 calls was decreased from the current 20.45 minutes in the base MAPP to a standard of 15 minutes. All of the other variables in the base MAPP remained the same in the MAPP developed for Option 2. The implementation of Option 2 as designed will allow GPD patrol officers to do the following: • Annually respond to an expected 1.73% increase in Priority “P” calls for service, 12.81% increase in Priority 2 calls for service, and 2.63% increase in Priority 3 calls for service; • Respond to Priority “P” calls for service in 6 minutes, Priority 2 calls for service in 8 minutes, and Priority 3 calls for service in 15 minutes; • Have one officer available to immediately respond to a Priority “P” call for service 98% of the time; • Provide a sufficient level of police visibility in the community; • Spend 15.67% of their shift on self-initiated activities; • Spend 18.3% of their shift on administrative activities; and, • Maintain the current leave rate for patrol officers. In Option 3, the percentage increases in calls for service (both primary and back-up unit responses) remain the same as utilized in Option 1 and 2. In addition, the response times to Priority 2 and 3 Option 2 Modeling Results: Based on the results of the MAPP for Option 2, 44 patrol officers need to be assigned to the GPD Patrol Division by the end of fiscal year 2020- 21. This is 12 additional patrol officers above the current authorized patrol staffing of 32. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2016-17 – Add 2 patrol officers FY 2017-18 – Add 3 patrol officers FY 2018-19 – Add 2 patrol officers FY 2019-20 – Add 3 patrol officers FY 2020-21 – Add 2 patrol officers Page 77 of 88 17 calls for service utilized in Option 2 (i.e., 8 minutes for Priority 2 and 15 minutes for Priority 3) remain the same in Option 3. The only change made was the response time to Priority “P” calls for service was lowered from 6 minutes in Option 2 to 5 minutes in Option 3. Priority “P” calls involve crimes in-progress and incidents that put citizens in imminent danger where rapid response matters. These incidents are critical, where minutes, and even seconds, can have a major impact on the outcome of the incident. Rapid response to Priority “P” calls for service can increase the probability of arrest of the suspect at the scene of the offense, decrease injuries suffered by the victim, decrease property loss and destruction, and deescalate the situation due to officer presence. A 5 minute response time to Priority “P” calls for service is consistent with historical staffing standards and with current norms established by the research team in prior staffing studies. All of the other variables in the base MAPP remained the same in the MAPP developed for Option 3. The implementation of Option 3 as designed will allow GPD patrol officers to do the following: • Annually respond to an expected 1.73% increase in Priority “P” calls for service, 12.81% increase in Priority 2 calls for service, and 2.63% increase in Priority 3 calls for service; • Respond to Priority “P” calls for service in 5 minutes, Priority 2 calls for service in 8 minutes, and Priority 3 calls for service in 15 minutes; • Have one officer available to immediately respond to a Priority “P” call for service 98% of the time; • Provide a sufficient level of police visibility in the community; • Spend 15.67% of their shift on self-initiated activities; • Spend 18.3% of their shift on administrative activities; and, Option 3 Modeling Results: Based on the results of the MAPP for Option 3, 46 patrol officers need to be assigned to the GPD Patrol Division by the end of fiscal year 2020- 21. This is 14 additional patrol officers above the current authorized patrol staffing of 32. Implementation Timeframe: FY 2016-17 – Add 3 patrol officers FY 2017-18 – Add 3 patrol officers FY 2018-19 – Add 2 patrol officers FY 2019-20 – Add 3 patrol officers FY 2020-21 – Add 3 patrol officers Page 78 of 88 18 • Maintain the current leave rate for patrol officers. GPD’s Future: Points to Consider In concluding this report, a few points to consider are offered as GPD implements a strategic patrol staffing plan. First, since the validity of the MAPP was established, it is expected the benefits described in the previous section will be realized as patrol staffing increases occur (i.e., decreased response times and ability to handle increases in calls for service without negatively impacting other patrol performance objectives, depending on the option selected). It is recommended that GPD personnel measure the benefits obtained each year as staffing increases occur to further validate the results of the added patrol personnel. Second, the GPD command staff should be cognizant of the benchmarks established for patrol in this report and measure their maintenance annually. For example, the patrol staffing levels in each option are established to allow GPD patrol officers to respond to an annual 1.73% increase in Priority “P” calls for service, 12.81% increase in Priority 2 calls for service, and 2.63% increase in Priority 3 calls for service. If the annual increase in calls for service is larger or smaller than projected, then new benchmarks for annual calls for service, by priority level, should be established through trend analysis and the patrol staffing increases recommended in this report should be adjusted accordingly. Third, earlier in this report, it was determined that, on average, 15.67% of each patrol hour is spent on self-initiated activities; 9.40 minutes per hour per officer (see Table 6). It is important to note that this value represents the actual time patrol officers spent on self-initiated activity in 2014. It is not a reflection of the actual time patrol officers had available to them to perform self-initiated activities. In other words, it is not a reflection of total unobligated time; time in which patrol officers are not answering calls for service. Based on an internal assessment completed by GPD personnel in 2014, unobligated time is estimated at 60% of each patrol shift, on average. It is expected that the percentage of unobligated time has decreased as the calls for service have significantly increased from 2014-2015, but this data was not updated for this 2015 report. It is recommended that GPD patrol officers spend 25% of each shift on self-initiated activities; 15 minutes per hour per officer. This standard fits with the norms established by the research team in prior staffing studies of between 25%-35% self-initiated time on each shift, fits with the long- established national standard of 33% of each shift should be allocated for self-initiated activities, and fits with current best practices in law enforcement. Based on the data available, it is anticipated that this standard can potentially be achieved without an increase in patrol staffing. GPD command staff should monitor the amount of time patrol officers spend on sel f-initiated activities to make sure adequate progress to the 25% goal is being achieved. Page 79 of 88 19 Fourth, prior to each budget request, GPD command staff should assess current data to verify that self-initiated time is increasing, response times are decreasing (if desired), and other patrol performance objectives are remaining stable as projected. If the projections are not confirmed, then the patrol staffing request needs to be adjusted based on the data available at the time. This assessment may lead to an increase or decrease in the number of patrol officers requested. In conclusion, these points are offered because the patrol modeling process is a dynamic process that needs to be routinely revisited because other variables besides the ones included in the model can impact the variables utilized in the modeling process. For example, as noted, the expected calls for service may actually be higher or lower than projected in this report due to population growth in the City of Georgetown. The model included in Table 11 and the options provided to staff the GPD patrol function in the future are stagnant at this point based on the input values included during the modeling process. As variables both inside and outside the model change, the model must be refined to reflect current conditions. In the end, this can lead to a need for more than or less than the projected number of patrol officers over the next five years, depending on the option selected. Page 80 of 88 Police Patrol Staffing Assessment Georgetown Police Department Presented by:Eric J. Fritsch, Ph.D.Professor and ChairDepartment of Criminal JusticeUniversity of North TexasMay 10, 2016 Page 81 of 88 Research team experience Multi-faceted methodology utilized Phone conferences and email exchanges with command staff Comprehensive review of documents and data City of Georgetown and Georgetown Police Department Review of nationally recognized best practices and contemporary staffing standards Development of staffing models OVERVIEW OF PATROL STAFFING ASSESSMENT Page 82 of 88 Development of staffing models utilizing MAPP 37 variables assessed Workload assessment Calls for service and service time variables Self-initiated and administrative time variables Leave rate Performance objectives assessment Response time variables Immediate availability variables Visibility variables OVERVIEW OF PATROL STAFFING ASSESSMENT Page 83 of 88 Step 1 : Build base MAPP utilizing 2015 data to establish concurrent validity Current authorized p atrol staffing level –32 patrol officers Step 2 : Build 5-year patrol staffing projections based on predictive validity of MAPP Modifications to base MAPP Increased calls for service Increased back-up unit responses Decreased response times OVERVIEW OF PATROL STAFFING ASSESSMENT Page 84 of 88 Option 1:Addresses increased calls for service and back-up unit responses o nly Changes to base MAPP variables -Average annual increase in calls for service 2011-2015: Priority “P” –1.73%, Priority 2 –12.81%, Priority 3 -2.63% Changes to base MAPP variables –Average annual i ncrease in back-up u nit r esponses Multiplier factors: Priority “P” = 1.43, Priority 2 = 0.73, Priority 3 = 0.21 Patrol staffing r ecommendations based on these MAPP modifications Recommended patrol s taffing l evel in 2020-21 –41 patrol officers Need 9 more patrol officers over next 5 years OVERVIEW OF PATROL STAFFING ASSESSMENT Page 85 of 88 Option 2 :Addresses increased calls for service and back-up unit r esponses and decreased r esponse t ime Changes to calls for service & back-up unit r esponses s ame as option 1 Reduced base MAPP response t imes from current l evels Priority “P” response t ime in 2015 –7.03 minutes (Reduced to 6 minutes) Priority 2 response t ime in 2015 –11.03 minutes (Reduced to 8 minutes) Priority 3 response t ime in 2015 –20.45 minutes (Reduced to 15 minutes) Patrol staffing r ecommendations based on these MAPP modifications Recommended patrol staffing level in 2020-21 –44 patrol officers Need 12 more patrol officers over next 5 years OVERVIEW OF PATROL STAFFING ASSESSMENT Page 86 of 88 Option 3 :Addresses increased calls for service and back-up unit responses and decreased r esponse time Changes to calls for service & back-up unit responses same as option 1 Changes to response t imes for priority 2 and 3 same as option 2 Reduced Priority “P” response time Priority “P” response time in option 2 –6 minutes (Reduced to 5 minutes) Patrol staffing recommendations based on this MAPP modification Recommended patrol staffing level in 2020-21 –46 patrol officers Need 14 more patrol officers over next 5 years OVERVIEW OF PATROL STAFFING ASSESSMENT Page 87 of 88 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop May 10, 2016 SUBJECT: Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney - Advice from attorney about pending o r co ntemplated litigation and other matters o n which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda item - Sneed Industrial Agreement - P UC Docket #4 55 96 - P EC v. GUS - P UC Docket #4 58 66 - LCRA TSC CCN Applic atio n Sec. 551.072: De l i berati o n Regardi ng Real P ro perty - Discussion of the appraised values of real prope rty regarding the Rivery Blvd. Exte nsion Pro ject Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters - City Manager, City Attorney, City Sec re tary and Municipal Judge: Consideratio n of the appointment, employme nt, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal - City Secretary Evaluatio n - Municipal Co urt Judge Evaluation Sec. 551.087: De l i berati o n Regardi ng Economi c Devel opment Negoti ati ons - Tamiro Plaza Phase 2 ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: TBD SUBMITTED BY: Page 88 of 88