Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole Minutes 02.18.1992 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CXMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Date February 18, 1992 Time 6:30 p.m. Place of Meeting Council Chambers Members present: Chairman- Chuck Rodgers Ron Marshall Gay Easton Bob Graham Lonnie Kellogg Others present: Mike Atkinson Dave Michael Vicki Metzger D.L. MCGillen Jim Worthington Don Hackmann Review the correspondence for tonight, especially the letter regarding law enforcement consolidation. (see copy attached) Discussion regarding the possibility of not having a quorum at tonight's meeting. There are quite a few ordinances which need to be passed and each one requires a public hearing, so it could get to be a lengthy meeting. Discussion regarding consolidation of law enforcement in Yellowstone County. Don will look up the Resolution that was passed several years ago when the council did not support the idea (see copy attached). Discussion regarding Pixley Transportation, Co., on whether they should have a City business license or not. This will be discussed further at a license committee meeting. Discussion regarding the resolutions regarding the setting of an encroachment application fee and rental fee. Jim reported on the property north side of 12th Street, south of the ditch, between the bridge and Valley Drive, regarding weeds. This property is in the County and owned by Lois Bernhardt. Jim also reported that the pipeline relocation through Riverside Park is now completed. • Darrell McGillen presented a letter from the Chamber of Commerce regarding the need of an office. This will be included with the correspondence at the Council meeting tonight. Page 2 Meeting of the City Council of the Whole February 18, 1992 Mike Atkinson reported on a complaint about loose cats. There is a possibility that this could be included under animal public nuisance instead of a cat leash law. The meeting was adjourned at 6:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Don Hackmann City Clerk 0 TRANSWESTERN I, RM 127 404 N. 31 ST ST. BILLINGS, MT59101 To: Board of County Commissioners Mayor, City of Billings Mayor, City of Laurel Mayor, City of Broadview From: Harold Hanser Re: Law enforcement consolidation Date: January 29, 1991 OFFICE (406) 255-7163 RESIDENCE (406) 259-9655 As you probably know the sheriff has suggested the issue of law enforcement consolidation should be addressed one more time. In my humble opinion the budget and service delivery crisis certainly makes such discussion appropriate. Clearly one of the major contributing factors to both state and local government financial problems is the excessive overlay of administration created by multiple jurisdictions which has virtually doubled the number of public employees as compared to our surrounding sister states. One of most efficient means to improve the administration vs worker ratio is by consolidation. If this process were applied to law enforcement in the county and cities it would not only allocate more officers for street duty but would increase the overall efficiency of this most necessary service. Historically we have seen these efforts side tracked because of turf and vested interest reaction. This is a hell of a way to run a ship. The documents produced by the former Law Enforcement Consolidation Commission certainly provide an excellent starting point for a new effort. May I encourage each of you to consider appointing a new commission to undertake this task in the public interest. I guess I personally see the choice as a simple matter of either developing cost effective service, or increasing taxes to maintain obsolete systems, or the worst case senerio where we increase cost and offer reduced services. The Partnership of Progress, an economic development proposal, issued in 1988 by the Montana Ambassadors (a state wide coalition of business leaders) in reference to local governments said: "However we recommend that serious efforts to reduce administrative duplication and consolidate services be given as much emphasis as efforts to increase funding." It is unfortunate this common sense observation has been largely ignored. HAROLD F. HANSER ATTORNEY CJ RESOLUTION NO. 2053 A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION COMMISSION'S PLAN FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN YELLOWSTONE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the Yellowstone County Interlocal Cooperation Commission has proposed its plan for consolidation of all law enforcement services in Yellowstone County, with election on the question to be held on April 3, 1984; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Laurel held a public hearing on the proposed plan in the Council Chambers at City Hall on February 7, 1984, and received public comment on the same and further, the Council has received reports and recommendations on the proposed plan from its committees and from City officers and employees; and, WHEREAS, the question.now before the Council is whether the proposed plan for law enforcement consolidation is in the best interests of the City and whether to oppose the plan; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, that the proposed plan for law enforcement consolidation in Yellowstone County is not in the best interests of the City of Laurel, and the Council hereby opposes the said plan and urges its defeat at the polls. This resolution opposing the proposed plan is made for the following reasons, among others: 1. The plan fails to provide or guarantee that law enforce- ment services delivered to the City of Laurel under con- solidation will not be reduced under current levels or will at least be maintained at minimum acceptable levels. The plan fails to specifically establish the nature of services to be provided, including the amount of manpower to be posted to the City, the number of officers to be on patrol within the City, and whether a precinct or or station house and dispatch services will be maintained within the City. Service to be provided is the most important consideration in establishing any system of law enforcement, and must control over financial considerations. -I- The residents of Laurel will have only minority represen- tation on the transition commission and the subsequent elected board which will administer law enforcement under i the plan. City residents will have no meaningful voice in the provision of services to Laurel under the proposed plan. 2. The proposed plan will result.in a loss of control by the elected officials of the City of Laurel over its law enforce- ment services. Non-resident personnel will be unfamiliar with the City and its residents, community support of police services could suffer, and quality of service could diminish. 3. The financial data used by the Interlocal Cooperation Commission in estimating savings to City residents, if the proposed plan is adopted, are not accurate and are mis- leading. Actual savings to City residents under the plan, if any, will be only minimal. The Council is unable to estimate future costs to the City to replace non-police services currently being provided by the City Police Department, including fire and ambulance dispatching and animal control, and to replace necessary equipment turned • over to the consolidated department. The City does not know and will have no voice in deciding whether such services will continue to be provided under a consolidated system. The costs of replacing the same, if necessary, will be substantial. 4. The plans from other jurisdictions relied on by the Com- mission in developing the plan do not accurately reflect and account for the differing characteristics and juris- dictions operating in Yellowstone County. . Introduced by Alderman Gauthier on February 21, 1984, at a regular meeting of the City Council. PASSED and APPROVED by the Laurel City Council this 21st day of February, 1984, CITY OF LAUREL AT ST: Albert Ehrlick, Mayor onald L. Hackmann, City Clerk Woveed. to form • -2-- aley, City n ? ty