Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20100824MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council Richard Pryor Steve Barwick August 17th, 2010 August 24th, 2010 Police Department Update BACKGROUND: In April 2010 the police department commissioned an audit of its evidence systems and policy manual. This was as a result of the following factors: • In late 2009 the police department established a 2010 goal to assess the viability of obtaining accreditation. The audit of our policy manual assisted in that process. • Problems with policy, procedures and personnel over the last two years required that an outside review take a critical look at our systems. • Specific problems with our evidence processes necessitated a review of those systems. • An outside audit could increase community trust, through a display of the department's transparency. DISCUSSION: .. Overview of the APD style: a. "Policing committed to community needs" is our mission statement. It reflects our desire to listen to our community and project our policing style based on their preferences. b. Our philosophy is centered on the concept of consent, derived from Sir Robert Peel's dictum that police are members of the public, and the public are the police. In other words, it is incumbent on all in society to do their part to provide for a safe "livable" environment, and that we, the police need to be a part of the community in order to be able to do our job. c. We have focused our internal message to concentrate on reinforcing values that support our mission and philosophy. This has also been prioritized in our hiring processes. Treating people with respect is an absolute focus. Page 1 of 3 2. State of the department a. Personnel. 9 of 15 street officers currently have two years or less time on the job, 3 of 15 street officers have between two and five years of time on the job. A sixty percent turnover rate in street patrol officers in the last two years has led to a very different looking police department. They are a productive group who have less experience, still need much training, and need to become better acquainted with the community. b. Avery brief snapshot of trainings in the last year: Basic crime scene; sex assault; Miranda; legal updates; video systems; evidence collection and documentation; detectives and case management. c. Imminent projects. Policy rewrite and accreditation, mobile computing, patrol room redesign, and a transition to a new public safety computer network are all underway. d. Future direction. Officer training and increased community interactions will remain prioritized. Also, we need to formalize a strategic plan for the next 5 years, with sections to address succession planning, community relationships, communication, technology, and space needs. e. Statistics summary: 2009 2010ytd i. Calls for service 19,824 12,639 ii. Arrests 464 270 iii. DUI arrests 135 78 iv. Traffic stops 5,463 2,452 v. Bears 713 301(different data collection method) 3. Audit overview: a. Audit review. i. The police policy manual was reviewed for gaps and omissions, and with an eye to its completeness when considering possible accreditation. Chief Montgomery, the auditor, offered a number of minor suggestions for improvement. ii. The police department evidence procedures and evidences spaces underwent a random audit. A number of significant issues came to light, mainly focused around misplaced evidence and documentation problems. b. Response to audit. i. Policy manual. We are in the process of working with CIRSA to implement a standardized policy manual system. Policies in this system will meet Colorado accreditation standards. The system is web based and comes with automatic updates, as well as a "Daily Training Bulletin" system. Timeline for implementation of this manual is tentatively six months. Subsequent to completion of the manual, the police department will seek accreditation. That process will take approximately one year. ii. Evidence Systems. Since the audit, every piece of evidence has been examined and relabeled (-1,500 pieces). Our evidence policy has been Page 2 of 3 rewritten and is about to be disseminated, and officers have received more training on evidence procedures. We are also about half way through purging unwanted evidence from years prior to 2007. Cases related to all unaccounted for items of evidence identified in the audit are being examined, with about 50% completed so far, and a preponderance of errors being related to documentation. 4. Conclusion In the last two and a half years the Aspen Police have seen a huge transition at all levels. A sense of improvement, enthusiasm, and stability now prevails, which we believe will translate into a more professional work product that will help bolster the credibility of the department. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 3 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Boazd of County Commissioners FROM : Tom McCab~ THRU: Barry Crook DATE: August 24, 2010 RE: ADDITIONAL APPLICANT SCREENING SUMMARY: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Boazd (hereafter the Boazd) is requesting approval of an addition to the APCHA Guidelines that was initially discussed by City Council and BOCC in April. It would grant APCHA the right to disallow housing qualification to those whose background indicates a troublesome housing, fmancial or criminal history. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the Joint Meeting held April 6, 2010, the City Council and BOCC requested adding language that identifies an appeal mechanism when a person is rejected for having a troublesome background. BACKGROUND: The Housing Office offered this Guideline suggestion in April. The language you see before you today was revised, per City Council and BOCC's request, by APCHA's Counsel, Tom Smith. DISCUSSION: Throughout APCHA's existence, certain individual's with troublesome personal histories have. qualified for APCHA housing. Troublesome tenants can affect the peaceful enjoyment of responsible tenants while problems aze addressed, often through the eviction process. These persons, though relatively few in number, require a disproportionately lazge amount of staff time and legal expense to manage. The time and money thus spent makes it more difficult for staff to keep rents affordable and to better serve our responsible tenants. As a consequence of these considerations APCHA's legal counsel, Tom Smith, has recommended the inclusion of the following text into both Section II (Rentals), and Section III (ownership), of the APCHA Guidelines. "It is our goal to house qualified employees in deed-restricted housing. The community is better served by employees who play by the rules and are considerate to their neighbors. Establishing compliance with the above- referenced requirements does not guarantee the availability of adeed-restricted housing unit to the applicant. APCHA may deny access to deed-restricted housing to any applicant whom APCHA finds would pose a significant risk to the use and enjoyment ofdeed-restricted housing to other qualified persons, or whose record as an occupant of any previous housing otherwise justifies a conclusion by APCHA that it would be in the best interest of APCHA to reject the application. Page 1 In making any determination under this provision, APCHA shall consider among other things, the applicant's criminal record, past non-compliance under any prior leases, and past relationships with APCHA. Any determination by APCHA pursuant to the pazagraph to deny housing to an applicant shall be made in writing. Such determination is subject to appeal to the APCHA Board of Directors in accordance with the Grievance Procedures in these Guidelines." As to what evidence is admissible at a public hearing, APCHA's attorney states that we can only deal with that on a case-by-case basis. For the purpose of Housing Authority matters, APCHA is only permitted to specify an appeal to the APCHA Boazd. APCHA is not able to specify a further appeal to the City or the County; each would have to amend their respective Codes to provide for that. Such an action would be inconsistent, providing a further level of appeal for only this circumstance. As always, if the Board heazs and rejects an appeal, the applicant can appeal to District Court. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In as much as troublesome tenants aze avoided, management and legal cost could be expected to decrease. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: There aze no environmental implications. RECOMMENDATION: For City Council to approve the inclusion of the new language into the APCHA Guidelines. ALTERNATIVES: To continue with no such safeguazd. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Board of County Commissioners FROM : Tom McC THRU: APCHA Boazd THRU: Barry Crook DATE: August 24, 2010 RE: GUIDELINE ADDITION FOR MAP OF OWNERSHIP EXCLUSION ZONE DEFINITION SUMMARY: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Boazd (Board) is requesting approval of this addition to the Ownership Exclusion Zone (OEZ) provision of the Guidelines. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In the April discussion Council and Commission approved the expansion of, and the verbal description of the OEZ. BACKGROUND: Until December of 2009, the area where a person was prohibited from owning property and participating in APCHA housing programs was simply described as the Roazing Fork River drainage from the continental divide at Independence Pass, to Glenwood. Staff recommended the expansion of this azea into the Grand Valley from No Name to Rifle and provided a map delineating the new area. This combined azea was approved and renamed the Ownership Exclusion Zone. DISCUSSION: The expanded OEZ verbal definition has been incorporated into the 2010 Guidelines, while the map depicting the expanded Ownership Exclusion Zone has not. The Mayor requested a map that could easily indicate if specific addresses were in or out of the OEZ. Staff realizes that parcel boundazies change with some regularity and asked the GIS Department to assist APCHA in finding reliable way to determine an address's up to date relationship to the OEZ boundaries in the new area extending into the Grand Valley. DetermininE a residence in or out of the Zone As recently approved, the extension of the APCHA Ownership Exclusion Zone consists of a Colorado River centerline which begins at approximately the town of No Name reaches to just west of Rifle. It extends approximately five miles on either side of the Colorado River. Six geographical points have been designate as boundary markers to delineate the section of the Zone which exists outside of the easily identified Roazing Fork drainages. Page 1 The GIS department of Aspen-Pitkin County, has provided APCHA with application files to be used in conjunction with the Google-Earth mapping software. Google-Earth can be downloaded free of charge by anyone. Other files provided by GIS are in a `.kml' format, which are also free, and which provide the six chosen coordinate points outlining the extension of the APCHA Ownership Exclusion Zone, and shades the internal area of this section of the OEZ. When both application files are on a PC, any address can be inserted into the Search field and the applications will then pinpoint the location. It will be clear if an address is in or out of the Zone. APCHA can make the needed links available to anyone free of charge, or it can look up the address in question and easily determine its relationship to the OEZ as a free service to the prospective client. The addresses or coordinates of a residence used by these programs are established from the deed or title information and/or the USPS mailing address. For those parcels that may lie only partially in the OEZ, staff recommends they be considered inside the OEZ. (An example address for viewing is "3800 CO Rd 325, Rifle ") Attachment A is the information that will be provided on the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's website under Sales and Rentals. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Because the OEZ is an area where APCHA has no previous qualification experience, potential costs are unknown, but they aze anticipated to be inconsequential. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: There aze no environmental implications. RECOMMENDATION: For City Council and BOCC to direct staff to present this request to each entity for separate jurisdictional approval. ALTERNATIVES: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 2 ATTACHMENT A Ownership Exclusion Zone The purchaser/owner/tenant must not own developed residential real estate or a mobile home in the Ownership Exclusion Zone as defined in Part X, Definitions (as stated below), of the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines (hereinafter "Guidelines"). If property is owned, the purchaser/owner/tenant must list for sale, at competitive mazket prices, the residential real estate or mobile home prior to or simultaneously with closing or renting the deed-restricted unit and still meet the asset/income limitations as set forth in Table I of the Guidelines. The purchaser/owner/tenant must provide the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereinafter "APCHA") with a copy of an appraisal that is less than one year old of the property. Upon the sale, a copy of the closing documents indicating the sale price must be provided to APCHA. If the property is not sold by the time of closing or renting of the deed-restricted unit, it must remain listed until sold. The purchaser/owner/tenant has 180 days to sell the free-market unit. After such time, the purchaser/owner/tenant must list and sell the deed-restricted unit according to the deed restriction or vacant the deed-restricted rental unit. NOTE: Persons owning improved residential property within the Ownership Exclusion Zone, residing in deed-restricted housing prior to May 1, 1994, will be allowed to retain ownership of that residential property and still be eligible to reside in that specific deed-restricted unit However, once the residential property is sold, the person residing in said deed-restricted unit may not acquire additional residential property and still maintain eligibility to reside in deed-restricted housing. Persons owning in New Castle, No Name or Rifle prior to September 1, 2009, may retain ownership of such property; however, if property is sold, no other properly can be purchased within those areas specified in the Ownership Exclusion Zone. Definition of Ownership Exclusion Zone (OEZ): Any developed residential property that has an address within the Roaring Fork Drainage situated in Eagle, Pitkin Garfield or Gunnison Counties, or within the Colorado River Drainage from and including the unincorporated No Name area to and Including Rye, and including, but not limited to, the towns of Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale, EI Jebel, Glenwood Springs, Marble, Meredith, New Castle, No Name, Redstone, Rye, Snowmass, Snowmass Village, Woody Creek. To determine the location of a residence within the Colorado River Drainage portion of the Ownership Exclusion Zone, APCHA uses a GIS developed method combining the application of Google-Earth© and the files below. Anyone may download the attached files for use with Google-Earth© downloaded free from the Internet. Ownership_exempt~ts.kml Ownership_exclusion.kml Page 3