HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-12 Correspondence
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMO
TO: Mr. Dale Helling
FROM: Chief Sam Hargadine
RE: Justification for Front Desk Personnel
DATE: January 8, 2009 Q~.~p ql~ i t~i.co rrec~)
C ~ Gi'Yl
Because dispatch personnel now man the police front desk there are numerous duties
that they have been responsible for; however, when the new Joint Communication
Center is built these personnel will no longer be present requiring someone else to do
them. Some of these duties are:
Answering the phone; the department's main phone number (319) 356-5275 needs to
be answered 24/7, 365 days a year. These are typically non-emergency calls from
other police agencies throughout the country, information requests from citizens and
they run the gamut as to the types of calls. "Where is the jail" and "my basement is
flooding what do I do?" Many times these calls need to be routed to specific divisions or
specific officers.
A secondary component of answering the phone and with walk up business will be
entering a "Call for Service" in to the dispatch system, just like a dispatcher will at the
center. This function should occur identically for the front desks at all Johnson County
police stations. It may be Coralville's case but if the victim walks in to ICPD, when it
gets shipped to Joint Communications the computer will automatically assign a
Coralville police unit to the call. The same should occur for N. Liberty, University
Heights and Johnson County Sheriff. This is a huge benefit of Joint Dispatch.
Warrant entry; presently dispatchers enter warrants for wanted individuals. Access to
State and Federal systems requires certified access by trained operators. Continual
recertification is required in order to enter and clear warrants.
Typed police reports; presently ICPD scans hand written documents for permanent
archival. When the new Records Management System is implemented all reports will
be typed. Front desk personnel when not busy will be tasked with typing dictation in to
the RMS system and/or from the hand written form.
Uniformed Presence; oftentimes people entering a police station are already under
stress or they have been victimized by a crime. How they are first met is critical to their
perception of how competent their police department is. While it is basic customer
relations it can't be emphasized enough. Having a trained professional greet them and
get them to the appropriate officer or investigator is vital. Those who work in City
Government, whether staff or elected, deal with many kinds of people and were used to
it. Many times though the only interaction a person has with their local government is at
the police department and it's almost never under pleasant circumstances. Having a
trained professional CSO greet these customers is vital.
Safe Haven; Children and stalking victims are encouraged to go to the police
department if anyone is bothering or following them. Any citizen or resident should do
this and there needs to be a trained person there who recognizes that something is
amiss when this occurs.
Court judges frequently write in dissolution papers and custody agreements that
children will be transferred for visitation in the police front lobby. This is done to deter
hostile confrontations.
It is not a rare instance when disturbances erupt in our lobby. The front desk person
needs to remain calm and summon officers from within the building. Therefore an
untrained "receptionist" is not recommended.
It has been suggested that Records clerks should run the front desk. Records. clerks
already have a large work load and should not be permanently tasked with front desk
duties. For example, injured officers on "light duty" typically work in Records and there
is always additional work for them in addition to several volunteers.
There are many departments that shut down their front lobby at 5:00 PM and citizens
must pick up a phone that rings to dispatch. An officer is then dispatched to contact
them in the lobby. This is a step backwards for Iowa City and I do not recommend it for
our citizens.
~ r
~~~~r~
~iu1i"
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 20, 2008
To: City Council ,\
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Re: Financing of Fire Station #4
QUESTION: In the event of a bond referendum, can the ballot question include a reference to Council's
intention to construct the fire station with the emergency tax levy in the event the bond referendum fails?
ANSWER: No
DISCUSSION:
Per section 384.26 of the Iowa Code the ballot question for a bond referendum must be in the following
form:
"Shall the City of Iowa City issue its bonds in an amount not exceeding the amount of $ for the
purpose of "
The "purpose" refers to those things defined in the code as a "general corporate purpose" (e.g. construction
of a fire station). While the intention of this Council may also be to avoid use of the emergency tax levy to
finance the building such a purpose is not one of the enumerated general corporate purposes and could not
be included in the ballot question. In addition: 1) The validity of such a ballot measure would be
questionable given that the Council cannot bind a future Council to use of the emergency levy; and, 2) the
question would be hard to word in such a way that would not be confusing to the public (e.g. does the
Council intend to use the emergency levy to finance the operations if the bond referendum passes? what
else might the emergency levy be used for?)
Of course, if you choose to proceed with a referendum you may explain to the public why you are doing so
(being mindful, of course, of the prohibition on using public money to "expressly advocate" for the passage
of a ballot issue)
I have discussed my conclusion with the City's bond counsel and he concurs.
Please call if you have any questions.
Cc: Michael Lombardo, City Manager
Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Andy Rocca, Fire Chief
_~
N
O
~ ~
U
a
h
°:
c
N
E
C
m
a
m
~ lD
d 3
C LL O
O
'~ ~'~`
yUU
3 3
jy O O
O
N
00
co
d
9
m
L
A
C
E
.~
a`
l!) N W CO
N ~0 N ~ n N
M O ~ V ~
_v\l` O N M ~ Y~
//~i O ~ On0 n ~ ~ r
I \ ~ N M ~ n V ~ CMD
fA EA f9 b9 b9 ~
n V O ~ (O
\` c0 c° M ~ (00 OD
`~ ^ (O ~np N O (O tD
~V O O V m N n N
Efl b9 EA fA EA V!
~ O N .-- M N
M .- O M e0 N
r ~p N M n f0
p O W ~f1 c0 M
eD M n N N Of
O
`, N ~p ~ c0 fD _M ~
69 Efl fA fA EA N
(D to O N CO
~ M N ~ n aD O
O V O O ~ N V
N (V (O r ~ O
~ V ~ _O
EA fA EA fA Efl W
N 01 N N ~
M V O n M tD
O ~ V O M (`07 Of
N n CO N °1 I~
d' M M 00
~ ~ ~ V3 ~ w
aD W aD W N V
(n M Oi ~ `7 (D r O
Z O r r r r W O
O
O N V- r O ~ W N
~ ~ 00 (D ~
Q fA EA fA 69 fA W
Q W O M r W ~
r W ~ e0 O N
V1 N ~ p C07 O N O ~ n
'~ ~ N 1° a0 M V O tD
M V N aC
d o € Wd e» ~ cn E» cn w
m 3 ~ _
_ ° Ur v o co M v~
~ ° Z n ~ o ~ ~ r
~7 lL
m ~ (MD (00 n CNO O
J °o m u~ - n c?
N O (n0 ~ O N N
m EH fA fA b9 ~ H
V 00 fOD 00 W Oa/
Z n r> ~ rn n r
0
Z O O N O N (D a
a N N O n (O 01
O (D V c0 O O
M M N °1 n
fA fA f9 EA fA W
n ~ O (O aD N
W O O O a0 CO
~ o ~ a0o ~ v n
~ O O N O
M M V _ n
fA EA E9 Efl fA W
~ ~ O O N N
00 O O O O T
~ c0 O V c0 00 O
O N m W n ~ O
~ ~ v~ N
M EA fH EA fA W
N In O O W C_O
n V O O
n n ~n ~n ui o
n n ~ n N N
OI O M lf)
r
N N 11') 119
f» E» e~ cs3 F» w
C ~
O O
2 ~
y ~ Y
C ~
° o a
U
3 ~ ° rn o
d m ~ m
Z ~ ~ ~ R a
Qo ~ E N ~ ~
~ E ° c
T ~
F- K U 5 Z
a~
~ ~U ~
'C ~ ~ (0
~ ~ ~ f6
"0 ~ to '-'
fn ~ ~ C
~ V ~ Z
r
r
V
Q
0
0
3
V
d
a
m
c
.~
m
O
O
N
ti
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
Ch ~
O y
O }
N
-o
N ~
O ~
O f0
N ()
0
0
N
O
O
O
N
O O O O O O O O O O ~'
O O O O O O O O O O
O OOi o~0 ~ c~0 ~ ~ (~~ N ~
r EA Efl EA 6R fA Efl EA EA 69
Efl
BUILDING PERMIT TO TAX COLLECTION CYCLE
Building Permits Issued City Assessor's Determination of Valuation
(Calendar 2007) (January 1, 2008)
Local Appeal Process State Determination of Aggregate Valuations
(April-May 2008) (July-October 2008)
Local Appeal Process on State Valuations Valuations Certified By County Auditor
(October-November2008) (January 1, 2009)
City Council Determination of Levies
(January-March 2009)
County Treasurer Sends Out Tax Bills
(July 1, 2009)
1 S` Payment Due by Taxpayers
(September 2009)
2°d Payment Due by Taxpayers
(March 2010)