HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/11/17 Item 23
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item ./3
Meeting Date 11/17/87
ITEM TITLE:
Pub 1i c Heari ng: Proposed Threshol d/Standards
Management Oversight Committee
Reso1ution/33~b Adopting the Proposed
Standards until the Growth Management Component of
Plan is adopted
Director of P1annin~
City Manage~
and
Growth
Threshold/
the General
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
(4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~)
On October 13, 1987, the City Council referred the September 16, 1987, Draft
ThreShold/Service Standards to staff for additional review and analysis. The
draft standards were prepared by a coalition of concerned citizens and
developer interests.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution.
BOARDS/COI41ISSIONS RECO""'ENDATION: Thi s proposal was revi ewed by the
Planning Commission on October 21, 1987, the Resource Conservation Commission
on October 26, 1987, the International Association of Fire Fighters on
October 30, 1987, and the Police Officers Association on November 12, 1987.
Those associations or commissions either supported or were not opposed to the
proposed threShold/standards as drafted. The Library Board of Trustees, Parks
and Recreation Commission and Traffic Safety Commission have not had an
opportunity to formally review the thresholds but are believed to be
supportive. The proposed 1 ibrary thresho1 ds parallel the standards contained
in the recently approved Library Master Plan. That Master Plan was favorably
acted upon by the Library Board of Trustees on March 25, 1987. The Parks and
Recreation Board, in consideration of pending changes in the parkland
dedication and improvement ordinance on August 20, 1987, have already endorsed
the suggested park acreage per population standard. The Traffic Safety
Commission had to cancel their regular meeting this month due to a scheduling
conflict. We hope tQ have~the input from the Chairman of the Commission for
report at the meeting.
DISCUSSION:
On October 13, 1987, staff generally expressed support for the thresho1 d and
oversight committee concept. Staff reserved comments especially with respect
to the appropriate Police and Fire and Emergency Medical Service Standards and
how the package would be implemented. A further question of Council was What
are the existing service level standards in the City right now compared with
those proposed in the report? That response and staff's comments are
summarized below as follows:
m
Page 2, Item ~~
Meeting Date 11/17/87
1. Ai r Qual ity
a. Recommendation: Accept as proposed.
b. Comment: The noti on of provi di ng San Oi ego APeD with a 12-15 month
development forecast appears to have merit. The staffing cost of
preparing such forecast is addressed in the Fiscal Impact.
2. Economics
a. Recommendation: Accept subject to further definition of the scope
and components of the economic study.
b. Comment: Agai n, the noti on of advocati ng an annual report whi ch
addresses the economic health of the city is a good one. The nature
and scope of that report is extremely vague at this point. The
economic report idea needs a more detailed outline as to content, a
determination as to whether or not certain data is available at a
city level, and what efforts by whom and at what cost would be needed
to carry out the study. We would suggest that a task force be formed
with representation from the coalition to do further work on the
effort.
3. Police
a. Recommendation: Modify the Threshold Standard to an interim standard
of five (5) minutes in 75% of the cases lnstead of five minutes in
90% of the cases. Modify the Implementation Measure: Modify the
implementation to clarify that the implementation measure sunsets on
March 1, 1989, unless a more direct casual relationship is
established between the Threshold Standard and new development.
b. Comment: Police is one of the most difficult areas to evaluate in
terms of making a nexus between response times and development
acti vi ty. As i ndi cated by the attached supporti ve memo from
Management Services, there are many more variables that affect
response time that are totally unrelated to the pace of new
development than vice versa. The City of Car1sbad, for example, in
their consideration of growth management deleted "Police" as a
performance criteri a. Whil e that is not our recommendati on, it is
concluded that the proposed Police threshold standard needs more
study; the existing emergency response times needs further
verification as well.
4. Fire and Emergency Medical Service
Recommendation: Modify the Threshold Standard for emergency response to
respond to calls throughout the Clty wlthin seven (7) minutes in 85% of
the cases instead of within six (6) minutes in 90% of the cases.
Comment: The draft proposal stated that the existing level of fire
servi ce response was subject to veri ficati on. The veri fi cati on has been
completed resulting in the recommendation for the modified standard. See
attached staff memo.
-, :?' '
/ -;: ,.> ~G.
II
Page 3, Item d-- '5
Meeting Date 1I/IIISl
5. Schools
Recommendation: Accept as proposed.
Comment: None.
6. Libraries
Recommendation: Accept as proposed.
Comment: The current level of service in the City for libraries is 456
square feet (gross) of space per 1,000 popul ation rather than the 500
square feet per 1,000 standard advocated by the draft threshol ds [57,329
sq. ft. divided by 125,712 (Sept. 1, 1987 estimate) = .456]. The
di screpancy is due to the Ci ty' S conti nui ng popu1 ati on increase through
development and annexation while not adding substantial library space
(only the two small branches in Montgomery). Without the annexati on of
Montgomery, the City standard would be 546 square feet per 1,000
population or in excess of the standards proposed. We acknowledge that a
new branch library is needed in the Montgomery Area and this need has been
reflected in the Chu1a Vista Library Master Plan and the Montgomery Draft
Specifi c P1 an. The staff is movi ng ahead wi th a staff commi ttee to
identify suitable site locations.
7. Parks and Recreation
Recommendati on: Accept as proposed with further c1 ari ficati on that the
standard shall apply principally to the area east of I-80S.
Comment: The City has historically provided 2 acres per 1,000 of parkland
with the existing General Plan Standard being 5 acres per 1,000 total (1
acre of which is provided by school facilities) or in other words, 4 acres
of which are satisfied by public parks. This is the ideal objective. The
proposed threshold of 3 acres per 1,000 population is a significant
improvement from where we are today.
Currently, the Citywi de standard is 1 ess than that proposed at 2.31 acres
per 1,000 (291 acres divided by 125,712 - 2.31) compared to the 3 acre
figure. However, the shortfall is in the existing Central Chu1a Vista
Area and not in the de vel opi ng Eastern Area. When a compari son is made
against the parkland available and population for the Central Area (west
of I-80S) versus the Eastern Area, the standards are 1.26 acres per 1,000
population and 5.85 acres per 1,000 population, respectively. Staff is of
the view that the development of parks in the newly developing area should
stand by itself and not be responsible for the past "mistakes" and
shortfall s in the central part of town. A separate Master Plan and city
, imp1 ementati on' program wi 11 be pursued to upgrade the exi sti ng park1 and
facilities in Central Chu1a Vista. In sum then, the recommendation is to
apply the 3 acre per 1,000 standard in the City area east of I-80S.
/ :;:: '7 U-,?
__/ ::J.. ~
Ii
Page 4, Item ~ ~
Meeting Date 11/ 7/87
8. Water
Recommendation: Accept as proposed.
Comment: None.
9. Sewer
Recommendation: Modify the Threshold Standard slightly to provide the San
Di ego Metropol i tan Sewer Authori ty with a 12- to 15-month development
forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's
purchased capaci ty ri ghts rather than requesti ng Metro to eval uate thei r
abl'1ty to accommodate the forecast.
Comment: The Ci ty has a contractual agreement wi th Metro for them to
provide 19.1 million gallons per day of capacity to Chula Vista.
Presently, 12 mi 11 i on gall ons per day capaci ty is bei ng used. If the
Metropolitan Sewer Authority at some point doesn't have the needed
facil ities, then our contractual relationship indicates they need to take
whatever steps necessary to provide it. If they can't provide sewer, we
would have a cause of action and the entire metropolitan area would be
subject to moratorium.
10. Drai nage
Recommendation: Accept as proposed.
Comment: None.
11. Traffi c
Recommendation: Accept as proposed.
Comment: The traffic threshold appears to be reasonable and implementable
as a basel i ne standard. Thi s does not precl ude staff from imposi ng a
higher standard as appropriate with specific property and roadway
circumstances in mind. There is, however, an implementation concern with
the threshold. It is going to take a considerable amount of staff time
and/or consultant time to develop the levels of service for each
intersection in the city. It may take 3-4 months to accomplish this task.
12. Growth Management Oversight Committee
Recommendation: Accept as modified.
Comment: A Growth Management OverSight Committee (GMOC) has been proposed
to provide an independent annual review of the effectiveness of the
General Plan in regard to development and growth issues and, via the
threshold standards, to assess the impact of development on the quality of
life of the City. The proposal is for a broadly based committee appointed
by the City Council which should be advisory to the Planning Committee.
The committee would meet annually for a specified periOd of time.
/,3:: 0?:;
I
Page 5, Item ,;L 5
Meeting Date 11/1//87
The Growth Management Oversight Committee concept was endorsed by the
Planning Commission unanimously. They felt the committee would contribute
greatly as an assist to the Commission and Council in their efforts to
conduct an annual revi ew of the Ci ty I S current growth management program
as well as the more comprehensive program yet to be developed with the
General P1 an Update. We concur wi th that general assessment as to the
value of such a committee, but would like to raise some questions
regarding particulars as to the committee implementation.
The committee proposal is segmented into the following areas:
charge/purpose, committee meetings and composition, committee
responsibilities and city responsibilities. The committee purpose,
tenure, composition and meeting schedule appears to be quite well stated
and from a t imi ng perspecti ve wou1 d i nterre1 ate well wi th the budget
cycle and otner key city processes conducted annually. The City
responsi bi 1 i ti es rai se the aura of staffi ng another of a growi ng 1 i st of
ad hoc committees, boards and commissions as well as involving more
staff support. The effort appears worthwhi 1 e and necessary though if a
meaningful growth management program is going to be carried out at
Council's direction.
Our concern, for Counc il consi derati on, is the possi b1 e open ended ro1 e
and responsi bil i ti es of the GMOC and the appropri ateness of one of the
stated respons ibil iti es whi ch has to do wi th the use of city fees and
revenues. First, from the standpoint of responsibilities, the draft
proposal indicates that the role is defined to include but not be limited
to certain things. We believe that the clearer the role is stated the
better and thus recommend del eti on of the words "but not 1 imi ted to." One
of the stated ro1 es is to see whether any new issues shou1 d be added to
the thresholds annually. We suggest that issues be evaluated for
additions as well as "deletions."
The mai n ro1 e we questi on though is the one whi ch read as foll ows:
"whether the City has been using fees and funds derived from developers
for the intended pUblic facility purposes in a timely and appropriate
manner, and in proper coordination with the Capital Improvement Program."
We suggest the deletion of this as not appropriate for the GMOC. All of
the other GMOC roles relate directly to the goals, definitions, compliance
and satisfaction of the actual thresholds. Now we are introducing a new
element, an oversight of city expenditures, financing and the 1 ike which
should remain the purview of staff and Council. Obviously the City
through various pUblic facility finance plans, impact fee programs,
development agreements, and budget and capital improvement programming
estab1 i shes and carries out facil i ty improvements. Developers can always
interact and questi on that process. It does not appear to be somethi ng
which should be included within the GMOC program.
5i nce the ro1 e of the GMOC is re1 ated to the Growth Management Component
of the General Plan, we would suggest the committee role might be further
clarified with additional policy statements by the City Council at the
point when the Growth Management Component is adopted.
Finally, for those thresholds affecting Montgomery, we would suggest the
GMOC recommendations to the Planning Commission proceed via the Montgomery
Planning Commission.
i..<'(:,
~
Page 6, Item ;)3
Meeting Date 11/17/87
13. Initiation of Process
It does not appear reasonable to staff to begin the GMDC process
January 1, 1988, for a number of reasons: Staff workloads, budgets and
priorities need to be reestablished to anticipate the work effort, much of
the data doesn't exist at this point and staff would normally have started
its preliminary work approximately two months ago. What should occur is
that staffing needs shoul d be refi ned, a task force convened on the
economic study, the traffic service level study initiated, the 12-15 month
development forecast begun, and GMDC applications for membership solicited
for Council consideration. It might be possible for the GMOC to convene
1 ater in 1988 and submit an interim report rather than wai ti ng until
January, 1989, to begin the full cycle.
FISCAL IMPACT: It is estimated that it will cost $80,000 to $100,000 to
complete the needed study to determine existing level of service at all City
intersections. It is estimated to cost approximately $1,800 to complete the
annual 12-15 month development forecast. Thi s wou1 d be done in-house by
Planning Department staff and then would be a general fund supported
expenditure. Costs to conduct the economic study are unknown as are clerical
and secretarial support costs to the GMOC review process.
WPC 4502P
~dAH'~
the City Council of
Chula Vista, California
:);~t:;;d
,~
if b
";'
November 10, 1987
TO: John D. Goss, City Manager
FROM: Bill Winters, Public Safety Director
RE: Fire Service Thresholds
Staff have completed their review of fire department call
for service data. The fire response time threshold
recommended by the Coalition was:
Respond to 90% of emergency calls within 6 minutes.
The Coalition recommendation
proposed threshold should
reflect) current performance
did, however,
be verified
levels.
indicate that the
by (and should
The department's current response time performance and
staff's recommendations are discussed below.
I. CURRENT PERFORMANCE
From the citizen's perspective, response time represents the
elapsed time between the call for service and the arrival of
the fire company. This span can be divided into four
distinct components. The first two components, call intake
and call dispatch time, represent the efficiency of the
communications system. The last two components, turn-out
and travel time, represent the efficiency and effectiveness
of fire resources. Each of the components is briefly
defined below.
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER VARIABLES
--Intake Time: The time taken by the communications
center to obtain the necessary information from the
caller, e.g. nature of the incident, location...
--Dispatch Time: The time taken by the communications
center to identify and notify the closest fire
company.
FIRE STATION VARIABLES
--Turnout Time: The time taken by the fire company to
depart the station after they've been notified of a
call.
I' 'J... ~;; ,i I
.' -' ""'0
Ii
-2-
--Travel Time: The elapsed time from departure to
arrival on-scene.
The impact of new development and increases in service
workload can create resource gaps in fire networks as well
as in communication center operations. Changes in fire
department response times may reflect the need for
additional fire stations, the need for additional
dispatcher or call intake positions or the need for
improvements in dispatching technology. In developing a
performance threshold for fire services, each time component
should be included in the measurement of overall response
times. In turn, any changes in performance over time can be
attributed to specific areas and appropriate corrective
measures designed. While this type of comprehensive
measure is most desirable, surveys of other cities indicated
that it is often not assessed due to various measurement
problems. In assessing the City's current response time
performance staff encountered several such problems. As
described below, most of the problems were solvable.
Currently, the department has a semi-automated computer
dispatch system for fire calls. The current system does
not, however, record call intake or call dispatching times.
During the call intake phase, the time needed to gather
relevant information varies considerably from call-to call.
Based upon current information sources, staff could not
establish an average call intake time and this component is
not included in the measurement of current response times.
Conversely, there is generally only a small degree of
variance in the time need to dispatch a call. As such, an
average dispatch time of 30 seconds was included in
assessing current response time performance.
A second data problem occurred because the current system
records turnout and travel times in minutes rather than
minutes and seconds. For computing current performance, it
was assumed that turnout and travel times were evenly
distributed within the measured categories.
In summary, the measurement of the department's current
response times includes estimates of three components:
dispatch, turn-out and travel time. . (It is important to
note that a new computer-aided dispatch system, targeted for
implementation in Calendar Year 1989, will measure dispatch
time and will provide accurate measures of turnout and
travel times. The new system may also provide an accurate
measure of call intake time.)
133%
m
.........J
-3-
The department's current response time to emergency calls is
shown below:
% of Emergency Calls
Responded To:
Within 5 minutes 64%
within 6 minutes 80%
within 7 minutes 90%
:[]:. RECOMMENDED THRESHOLD STANDARD
The response time threshold recommended by the Coalition
was:
Respond to 90% of emergency calls within 6 minutes
The Coalition recommendation did, however, indicate
proposed threshold level should be verified by
performance.
that the
current
Based upon the response time data detailed
following recommendations are made concerning
threshold for fire services:
above, the
a citywide
RECOMMENDATION 1:
That the threshold be stated in terms of
the Dercentaqe of calls resDonded to
within a seven (7) minute reSDonse time.
Differences in the road network, terrain and
housing density result in a somewhat higher
response time to service calls in the eastern
section of the City. The 7 minute standard is
more appropriate for a citywide threshold since it
more adequately accounts for these operational
differences.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
That the threshold be established below
the measured Derformance level to
account for normal vear-to-vear
variation.
This variation would be expected to occur without
any change in population or service demand, and
reflects normal changes in the geographic
distribution of calls. A variance factor of 2.5%
is recommended.
". ~
.
1334C,
Ii
.'J
-4-
RECOMMENDATXON 3:
That the threshold be established below
the measured Derformance level to
account for chanaes in reSDonse times
eXDected durina the initial Dhase of
develoDment.
Although a new fire sttion may be planned for an
area, there is generally an insufficient workload
during the early stages of development to warrant
staffing the new station. (Annual operating costs
for a fire station are estimated at $500,000.)
This expected lag will, in turn, result in an
expected downturn in response time performance
over the short term. As such, it is recommended
that the threshold represent a "start-up" factor
of 2.5%. In this regard, the threshold would
represent a floor below which service levels could
not fall.
Taking into account the "normal variance" and "start-up"
factors, it is recommended that the threshold service level
be established at 5% below current performance.
RECOMMENDED CITY-
WIDE STANDARD:
To respond to 85% of emerqency
calls within 7 minutes.
staff has met with the Board of Directors of Chula Vista's
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). At that
meeting staff presented the proposed service threshold and
explained the process used to develop the threshold. The
IAFF Board did not express disagreement with the proposed
threshold of maintaining an 85% response rate to emergency
calls within 7 minutes.
Lastly, as previously mentioned, a new computer-aided
dispatch (CAD) system is planned for the near future. When
this system is installed, the response time standard should
be reviewed and adjusted according to the enhanced
information available at that time.
cc: Gene Asmus
sid Morris
Jim Thomson
George Krempl
Sam Lopez
Marty Chase
I~j~b
It
November 10, 1987
TO:
John D. Goss, City Manager
FROM:
Bill Winters, Public Safety Director
Police Service Threshold
RE:
Staff have completed their review of police department call
for service data. The police response time threshold
recommended by the Coalition was:
Respond to 90% of emergency calls within 5 minutes
The Coalition recommendation did, however,
proposed threshold should be verified
reflect) current performance levels.
current response time performance
recommendations are discussed below.
indicate that the
by (and should
The department's
and staff's
:I. CURRENT PERFORMANCE
A. The DeDartment Manaqes :Its Service Workload Throuqh a
Call Priority System.
This year, the police department will respond to more than
50,000 calls for service. To manage the service workload,
the department has developed a call prioritization system.
Under this system, call priorities are established according
to the characteristics of the incident. The highest priority
ranking, representing "emergency" calls, includes incidents
having a higher probability of injury or loss of life. The
call priority categories (Emergency, Urgent and Routine) and
examples of the incidents falling within each category are
shown below.
EMERGENCY
URGENT
ROUTINE
-serious injury
accident
-in-progress assault
or in-progress
residential bur-
glary
-felony hit/run
-concealed/illegal
weapon
-misdemeanor hit/
run
-pickup shoplifter
in custody
-non injury acci-
dent
-report on a
"cold" crime
-abandoned vehicle
\33tf&
~
- 2 -
To provide an adequate response capability to emergency
calls, responses to less critical calls are delayed as need
be.
B. Response Time to Police Calls for Service Includes Two
Ma;or Components.
From the citizen's perspective, response time represents the
elapsed time between the reporting of an incident and the
arrival of the peace officer. This span can be divided into
two primary components.
--Dispatch Time: The elapsed time between receipt
and dispatch of a call for service. The most important
variables affecting the length of time until a call for
service is dispatched are the relative call priority,
the existing service workload and patrol officer
availability.
--Travel Time: The elapsed time from notification
of the patrol unit until its arrival on-scene. The
most important variables affecting travel time are the
size of the patrol beat, the prevailing traffic
conditions, and the authorized patrol response (e.g. if
lights and sirens are used).
C. Measurement Problems Were Encountered in Assessina
Current Performance Levels.
staff encountered several significant data problems in
attempting to measure the department's current response time
performance. These problems fell into two categories __
recording errors and coding errors -- and both are described
below.
1. Data Errors Occur in Recordina Time Information
Due To Equipment Limitations.
In responding to emergency incidents, limitations in
the existing communications system, especially during
high workload periods, sometimes require the use of
non-standard operating procedures. While increasing
the actual responsiveness of operations, these
procedures reduce the accuracy of response time data,
as explained below.
For most service calls, a change in status is entered
into the computer as it occurs. Thus, when a call is
dispatched this information is noted on the computer
record. In turn, the time of dispatch is automatically
calculated by the internal computer clock.
Subsequently, when the communication center is notified
of the patrol officer's arrival on-scene, that
/334(",
ill
- 3 -
information is entered on the computer record and the
corresponding time is recorded. The difference between
the time the call was dispatched and the time the
patrol unit arrived is calculated as the travel time.
This is how the system is designed to operate and how
it does operate for the majority of service calls.
For emergency calls, however, limitations in the
existing computer system sometimes necessitate that a
different set of operating procedures be used.
Emergency calls by their very nature result in the
dispatch of multiple patrol units and a high volume of
radio transmissions. Because of the relatively slow
responsiveness of current computer equipment,
Communication Operators may not record the arrival of
patrol units in the computer as they occur,
particularly during periods when the overall call
workload is high. Rather, to optimize operational
effectiveness, these "housekeeping" tasks may be
attended to at a latter time, when the incident is
under more control. This delay in data entry distorts
the response time data. When arrival data is entered
after the actual arrival, longer travel times are
calculated than actually occurred. In measuring
performance, staff could not determine the adjustments
necessary to account for these recording errors.
Hence, the measure of response time performance for
emergency calls is expected to understate. the
department's actual performance.
The current computer-aided dispatch system was
developed on the city's mainframe computer as an
interim system, in response to the significant growth
in workload and patrol staff following the Montgomery
annexation. This interim automation has enabled
dispatchers to more effectively keep track of both
incidents and staff than had been possible under the
previous manual system. It is important to recognize
that under the old manual system errors in recording
response time information also occurred. However,
while the existing system induces errors which
overstate response times, the manual system induced
errors which understated response times to emergency
calls. Hence, data prior to 1987 showed higher
performance levels than actually existed. For this
reason, as well as for reasons detailed below, an
historical comparison of response time data cannot be
made.
It is important to note that the interim computer
system is scheduled to be replaced by a new computer-
aided dispatch (CAD) system on a mini-computer
dedicated to CAD during Calendar Year 1989. The new
system is expected to correct recording problems in two
/334b
~
- 4 -
ways. First, the new system should enable
communication operators to update call status as
quickly as it occurs for most emergency incidents.
Second, the new system may include mobile data
terminals which, among other advantages, would allow
officers to denote their actual arrival times.
2. Data Errors Occur in Codina Call Priorities. Due to
Trainina Deficiencies.
The new coding system for classifying and prioritizing
calls for service was implemented in January 1987.
This new system was developed, in part, in response to
deficiencies in the previous coding system which
under-recorded the number of emergency calls. While
the new priority classification system has been a
significant improvement over the previous system,
staff's data review indicates that a number of coding
errors exist within the current system. The most
common problem relates to assigning an inappropriate
priority to an incident during the call intake phase.
Most often the inappropriate priority is higher than
warranted by the actual characteristics of the
incident. Regardless of the priority assignment,
however, dispatchers and/or peace officers tend to
react to the "actual" rather than "assigned" priority
of the call. This leads to longer dispatch times or
longer travel times than would be expected for true
"emergency" incidents. Miscoded information primarily
results from (1) a lack of time available for lead
communications operators to train dispatchers in the
priority coding system and to correct coding problems
as they arise and (2) the use of peace officers and
community service officers, who are only marginally
trained in communication center operations, to fill-in
for regular dispatchers.
It is important to note that under the previous system
for classifying and prioritizing calls, the number of
"emergency" calls were under-reported. Thus, as
reported in PAPE's Management Review of the Police and
Fire Department (1985), only 55 out of 36,063 calls for
service were clearly categorized as emergency responses
during FY 1983-84. Other "emergency" calls, while
acted upon as emergencies, were not clearly labeled as
such for reporting purposes. For this reason, as well
as for reasons previously noted, an historical
comparison of response time data cannot be made.
The performance data shown below is for the nine month
period January 1, 1987 through September 30, 1987. As
discussed above, recording and coding errors have
,overstated the department's response times to emergency
calls. While it is expected that the department's real
133 L10
Ii
- 5 -
response times are significantly faster than the data
shown below, an accurate estimate of actual performance
cannot be made at this time.
% of Emergency Calls
Responded To:
Response within 5 minutes:
47%
Response within 6 minutes:
57%
Response within 7 minutes:
66%
Average Response Time:
6.8 minutes
II. RECOMMENDED THRESHOLD STANDARD
Based upon the
recommendations are
police services:
preceding analysis, the
made concerning threshold
following
levels for
RECOMMENDATION 1:
That staff take immediate action to
improve the response time data.
The City's true performance levels cannot be measured at
this time due to the recording and coding errors described
above. It is therefore recommended that staff take
immediate steps to improve the response time data and
provide regular reports to Council on a six (6) month basis.
A. Several Actions are Planned to Eliminate Codinq Errors.
To ameliorate coding errors, staff plan to:
1. Increase the time available for lead
communications operators to review and
correct coding errors. Because the lead
operators are actually "working" supervisors,
additional overtime or other fill-in methods
will be required during some of these
"training" periods.
2. Have the Communications Center Manager review
response time data on a daily basis to assess
anyon-going problem areas. This new
position (approved in the FY 1987-88 budget)
is expected to be filled by January 1, 1988.
3. Have Data Processing modify the current data
entry program to increase dispatcher/call
intaker accountability.
)334~
Ii
- 6 -
4. Develop alternatives to using peace officers
to fill-in for communications operators. In
addition to simply creating coding errors,
the use of highly trained sworn staff in this
role has other, more serious consequences.
First, it reduces the number of peace
officers available in the field for regular
patrol duties, thus representing an
inefficient use of resources. Second, the
use of staff who may be only marginally
trained in dispatch procedures can
potentially reduce the effectiveness of
communications center operations during
emergencies. Alternatives to current fill-in
practices will likely require additional
staffing for the communications center.
Staff are assessing the appropriate
classification level which would be needed to
meet fill-in requirements as well as provide
an efficient overall use of communication
center personnel.
B. Interim Measures are Beinq Assessed for Reducinq
Recordinq Errors.
Some of the recording errors result from limitations
inherent in the current computer equipment. These errors
are not expected to be fully corrected until the new
computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system is installed. Based on
current time lines, this new system should be operational in
the next 18-21 months. In the interim period, staff are
reviewing options for improving the speed of the mainframe
computer, to facilitate its use for recording information
during emergency pOlice calls. Staff are currently
assessing the possibility of using some of the anticipated
"asset seizure" monies for this purpose.
The activities outlined in Sections A and B above should
help to correct coding and recording errors and should
improve the accuracy of response time data. It is important
to note that improvements resulting from these actions will
generally reflect a truer measure of actual performance
rather than a real change in performance. On May 17, 1988
staff will report back to Council on their efforts to
improve the data base and will provide updated response time
information.
c. AdditionallY. Staff Plan to StudY Ways to Enhance
Actual Performance.
In September 1986 the Police Department, in conjunction with
staff from the City's Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation
(PAPE) Unit, assessed the workload and staffing needs of the
133"-""
Ii
- 7 -
Patrol Division. In addition to recommending a significant
increase in patrol staffing, that study also resulted in a
number of actions to improve responses to emergency calls.
Among these were (1) redesigning patrol shifts so that the
shift overlaps came at peak workload hours thus putting the
maximum number of officers on the street during high call
times and (2) using "sector" cars as the primary backup unit
rather than pulling patrol units off of neighboring beats.
As part of the upcoming review of patrol staffing planned
for January 1988, staff will be assessing other possible
changes in deployment and beat design to quicken the
department's actual response to emergency calls. Any
proposed changes in tactical pOlicies will be reported to
Council as part of the overall workload study.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
That Council adoDt an interim threshold
of resDondina to 75% of emeraencv calls
within 5 minutes.
Until such time as staff are able to more accurately measure
current performance, it is recommended that Council adopt an
interim threshold of responding to 75% of emergency calls
within 5 minutes. The proposed 75% response rate is
suggested as a target for three reasons:
1. Over the past several weeks, staff have taken
initial steps to reduce/eliminate data errors. A
limited sampling of calls was undertaken for the
period following these corrective actions. In
that sample, the department's 5 minute response
rate to emergency calls measured 75%. It is
important to emphasize that (1) the measure was
based on only a 4-week sample and that (2) while a
substantial reduction in the error rate occurred,
errors still exist within the data base.
2.
A survey of other pOlice departments in San Diego
County found that most did not have current
response time information. However, for those
departments with up-to-date data, a rate of
responding to 80% of emergency calls within' 5
minutes was the highest level reported. Some
departments "estimated" that their rates might be
higher but they did not have any hard data
available. (Comparative data should, however, be
viewed with caution based on the City's own
experience. )
-
3. PopUlation densities and per capita service
workloads are lower in the eastern sections of the
City, where new development is expected to occur.
The efficient and effective deployment of police
staff necessitates that patrol beats in these
1~~t./0
m
- 8 -
sections cover larger geographical areas than
beats in sections having higher densities and
higher call fo~ service rates. The proposed
threshold of responding to 75% of emergency calls
within 5 minutes is more likely to reflect these
operational differences.
RECOMMENDATION 3:
That the imolementation measures for the
Police threshold be sunset on March 1.
1989 unless a more direct causal
relationshio is established between the
threshold standard and new develooment.
A threshold is most meaningful for a growth management plan
to the extent that the measured service level is related to
the growth that is occurring. Indeed, the Coalition
recommends that any moratorium be limited to the "area
wherein a causal relationship to the problem has been
established". Unlike possible traffic related problems,
police response times to emergency calls are most likely to
change for reasons unrelated to new growth. Indeed, given
the current per-capita call rates, it is likely that any
change in overall response time performance would reflect
workload changes in the high call demand areas that are
located in the western sections of the City rather than
changes in the newly developing areas. For police services
it may be extremely difficult to establish clear causal
relationships within specific geographic areas. As such,
staff feel that the police threshold needs to be further
evaluated in terms of its place within the growth management
plan.
staff has met with the Board of Directors of Chula vista's
Police Officer Association (POA). At that meeting staff
explained the current measurement problems and presented the
proposed threshold.
cc: Gene Asmus
sid Morris
Jim Thomson
George Krempl
Keith Hawkins
Dan Blackston
Marty Chase
John PaVlicek
MDCjkt
-~
/ ::, 3 <t-6
I~
October 9, 1987
.
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
John D. Goss, City Manager~
Recommendations Regarding Thresholds/Service Standards Submitted
by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens and Development Interests
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The letter submitted by the .Coalition of Concerned Citizens and Development
Interests. transmits policy recommendations to the City Council for
thresholds/service standards for important public services provided by the
City and other pUblic agencies. The Coalition has recommended that the City
Council adopt these pOlicies as an .interim measure. to be in effect until the
General Plan amendment is completed.
Since receiving the proposed threshold/service standards, City staff has
conducted a preliminary review of the Coalition's proposal. Overall, staff
believes that the interim measures submitted by the Coalition could ultimately
be adopted after proper review with the following fine tuning:
Sewers: Currently, this threshold proposal requires that the City
shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority
with a 12-15 month development forecast and request an evaluation
of Metro's ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing
growth, or the City Engineering staff shall gather the necessary
data. Information provided to the Growth Management Oversight
Committee (GMOC) shall include the following:
a)
b)
c)
Amount of current capacity now used or committed
Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth
Evaluation of funding and site availability for
projected new facilities
Other relevant information
d)
It is recommended that this item be modified to indicate whether
the City's current or projected sewer usage is within the City's
purchase capacity rights through the San Diego Metropolitan
Authority rather than does Metro have adequate facilities to
absorb our growth. If the authority does not have the facilities,
then the existing contractual arrangement with the Authority
indicates that it must provide the capacity to the City.
\~3J.\-p
I~
-2-
POlice/Fire: It is recommended that the service standards
proposed by the Coalition relating to Police and Fire be adopted
as an interim measure with the understanding that they need to be
refined to reflect the service standards currently provided by the
City. It is staff's intent to return with recommended
modifications to the proposed thresholds/service standards which
will express current POlice/Fire response standards. Staff
estimates it will require approximately 60 days to review existing
service levels in the Police Department and approximately 3 weeks
for a similar study of Fire service levels.
Traffic: Staff agrees with the Coalition's recommendation on
service standards for intersections. However, it must be
recognized that it may take considerable staff or consultant time
to develop the base line level of service data for the
intersections.
JDG:mab
.
~
Ii
~
..~ s~,'
l /Y"""'IITI('f.
-' -.....;0_. ....UI !
RECEIVED
~7 SEP 18 PS :04
September 17, 1987
cm OF CHULA VISTA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Honorable Mayor and City
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Council
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
As you are aware, a coalition of concerned citizens and
development interests has met over the past few months to
formulate policy recommendations to maintain the quality of life
now enjoyed by Chula Vista residents while the General Plan is
implemented. These policy recommendations have taken the form
of "thresholds" or service standards for important public
services provided by the City and other public agencies. The
accompanying document is the final product of the coalition's
work. It describes the various proposed thresholds and
formulates a mechanism for maintaining them.
We are submitting this document to you with the recommendation
that your Council adopt these policies by resolution as an
interim measure to be in effect until the General Plan Update is
completed. At that time, we request that these policies be
adopted in the updated General Plan.
We have also submitted copies of this document with a copy of
this letter directly to the Planning Commission. Enclosed are
additional copies which you may wish to distribute to other
boards and commissions for their review anQ comments prior to
your action. ~__
We thank you in advance for your consideration of our proposal
and appreciate this opportunity to provide these recommendations
to your Council. We also thank City staff who provided con-
siderable data, expertise, and suggestions during our meetings.
Respectfully submitted,
Coalition Members
(see attached list)
cc: Planning Commission
-- -- ----- -----------~~--__r_------ --- --- ------- ---
,~?>tlo_
,
/-
COALITION MEMBERS
CROSSROADS
Carol Freno
Will Hyde
Bill Robens
Peter Watry
3703 Alta Lorna Dr., Bonita, CA 92002
803 Vista Way, Chula Vista, CA 92011
254 Camino Elevado, Bonita, CA 92002
81 2nd Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010
EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT CO. 900 Lane Ave., Chula Vista, CA 92013
Bob Santos
Katy Wright
GREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CO. 600 "B" St., San Diego, CA 92101
John Ochsner
MCMILLIN DEVELOPMENT INC. 2727 Hoover Ave., Nat'l. City, CA 92050
Ken Baumgartner
UNITED ENTERPRISES LTD. 1007 5th Ave. #1200, San Diego, CA 92101
Rose Patek
BUD GRAY & ASSOCIATES 4400 Palm Avenue #G, La Mesa, CA 92041
Bud Gray
CINTI & ASSOCIATES 1133 Columbia st. #201, San Diego, CA 92101
Gary Cinti
Jay Kniep
WARREN & ASSOCIATES 401 W. "A" St. #2500, San Diego, CA 92101
Bruce Warren
0: ~m
(}ft-
);v./ p~
~\t1
WRiTl~Ei'~ COMtAUNICA TIONS
10/13/ J'?
i 334-& i