ACTIVE YEAR-TO-YEAR CASES
Cases that remain open at the end of each calendar year remain open and hold the same case year and case number until case closure. Some cases will remain active over an extended period of time until the violations are resolved and assessed fines/City expenses are paid.
Active cases from prior years are added to the list of newly created cases for that calendar year. Officers assess each case to determine if it is of high priority to ensure these cases are addressed first. Officers then manage cases by as signed area and follow a first in - first out approach as Officers aim to address older cases first.
CASE INSPECTIONS
Cases ge nerate inspections and are the o fficer’s primary work load indicator. Inspections follow an established compliance workflow pro cess that prompts the officer to complete a specific compliance step (example: issue a Notice of Violation, determine if a Notice of Pendency (lien) is necessary, issue a citation or take abatement action).
At least one inspection is conducted in each case to validate the reported violation(s). The completion of the initial inspection and related tasks will take the officer as much as 40 -minutes to complete. When violations are found, the case progresses with additional compliance inspectio ns designed to guide the officer in the next compliance step. Typically, at least 2 inspections are completed, but as many as 15 inspections may be needed to gain compliance and achieve case closure.
To dem onstrate that the incoming case load is beyond the work load capacity th us creating inspection delays, below is an analysis of the short fall relating to actual cases and time available by staff to attend to cases.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE C3 - CASELOAD CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Table C3 above, relies on calculations and assumptions summarized in Exhibit C, entitled Inspection Time Analysis. Table C3 shows an increase in actual caseload of 626 cases from 201 8 to 2019, representing a 12% increase. With a maximum caseload capacity of 4,074, not only is caseload increasing from year to year, an increasing amount of cases are being carried over from year to year.
TABLE: C4 - OPEN CODE CASE ACCUMULATION
2017 2018 2019 2020
2017 Rollover Cases 199 163 157
2018 Rollover Cases 1020 1007
2019 Rollover Cases 1385
New Year Cases 248 2474 3127 499
Current Year Total Cases 248 2673 4310 3048
Current Year Closed Cases 49 1454 1778 170
Roll to Next Year 199 1020 1385
Open case accumulation and carry over, means cases are taking longer to close. A major contributor to case close out taking longer is not just due to lack of personnel, but also due to its reaction to differing casework priorities, summarized below.
4074 4074
5276
5902
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
7 CEOs/2018 7 CEOs/2019
Staffing Capacity vs. Actual Caseload
Maximum Caseload
Capability
Actual Incoming
Caseload
Public Safety Plan
CASE WORK PRIORITIES
During the last few years, the amount of time available to an Officer dedicated to clear code violations has decreased while the amount of incoming cases has continued to increase. Case delays occur due to unplanned tasks that may pull one or m ore Officers from scheduled inspections. Case delays also occur when on-going cases progress to abatement action and require the officer to dedicate additional time to work with the City Attorney’ Office to secure court orders, write abatement scope s of work and coordinate with contractors to execute the abatement.
The list below provides a list of high priority tasks and related time frames that consume an officer’s time resulting in a chain reaction effect delaying an officer’s scheduled case work/ inspections:
TABLE C5 – HIGH PRIORITY TASK/TIME
HIGH PRIORITY TASKS TIME TO COMPLETE EACH
TASK
Homeless Encampment Notices
(initial notice per encampment site)
Two officers required
1-2 hours
Homeless encampment clean up/
storage of property 1-3 hours
Homeless property release 1-1.5 hours
Street vendors 1-1.5 hours
Sewage calls 1-2 hours
Fat oils and grease (FOG) overflows 3-5 hours
Illegal marijuana cultivation 2-4 hours per grow
Structure fires/ Fire Department
emergency response support 1-2 hours
Police emergency response support 1-3 hours
Abatement Actions 2-4 hours
TIMELY SERVICE DELIVERY IMPACTS
Concerned residents reporting nuisance conditions that impact their community, property values and quality of life such as unmaintained landscape or trash/ debris are the most impacted and the most vocal about these unresolved conditions.
Example:
• Code Co mpliance receives and processes a complaint for unmaintained landscape or trash/ debris
Public Safety Plan
• If there are no high priority cases pending, the officer will inspect within 72 hours and issue a correction notice
• A follow up inspection is set for 30 days
• High priority cases or additional cases are sent to the officer requiring related case work • The pending 30 day inspection noted above is delayed due to ▪ High priority case response needs or
▪ Other cases pending with older follow up dates that are due to be completed • The uncorrected violation continues and is noticed by the concerned resident • The resident contacts Code Compliance and expresses dissatisfaction and frustration with the enforcement process and delays
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ACTIONS
In addition to completing a number of inspections relating to property nuisances and land use violations, the Code Compliance Division completes regulatory inspections related to the following of city permits and licenses:
• FAT, OILS AND GREASE COMPLIANCE (FOG) - Inspections relating to the proper handling and disposal of FOG generated by restaurants. Through monitoring and strict regulation, these vital compliance efforts aim to prevent City sanitary system blockages that are one of the causes of sanitary system overflows. These efforts help ensure businesses remain in compliance with state and local laws and further protect public health.
• RENTAL PROPERTY LICENSING INSPECTIONS - Annual exterior inspections focused on ensuring rental properties are maintaine d. A passing inspection is required prior to licensing any new rental property or renewing an existing rental license. Approximately 44% of the City’s housing stocks are estimated as rentals (15,595 units) . The regulation of rental property helps all resi dents maintain healthy communities and positive property values.
• GENERAL CITY LICENSING - Through inspections, Officers assist businesses in completing the licensing process, address land use and zoning issues and enforce annual license renewal requirements.
• MOBILE HOME PARK MAINTENANCE AND COMPLIANCE - As required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Building Division completes two required mobile home park and space inspections annually. Mobile Home parks space s range from 20 to 366 spaces and each space is evaluated for property maintenance. The Code Compliance Division provides enforcement measures on each park/space that continues to be in violation so that residents
Public Safety Plan
continue to live in a safe area. Of the 1 2 mobile home parks, the City inspects at minimum, two parks per year. Code Compliance will create a code compliance case at each Mobile Home Park space that remains in violation to help the space occupant come into compliance. • BUILDING PERMIT COMPLIANCE – The Code Compliance Division provides added follow up options for incomplete building permits. These actions help ensure structures are built safe and achieve final approval with proper documentation.
• PROPERTY TRESPASS AGREEMENTS – Due to increased imp acts related to homeless encampments, through the management of this online service, the Code Compliance Division helps owners of commercial and vacant property take control of their property and provide a faster law enforcement response.
ABATEMENT ACTIONS
Generally after a number of failed inspections, Officers may need to proceed with abatement actions that include warrant writing, abatement scopes of work for bidding contractors, demolition actions or receiverships. Abatement actions require a considerabl e amount of additional officer time to prepare the case for these actions and, as a result, create delays to other scheduled work.
STAFFING LEVELS
The table below summarizes the number of budgeted Code Enforcement Officers, Supervisors and Managers, and Other Enforcement Officers the Code Compliance Division has had over the past 20 years.
Budgeted positions do not equal the actual number of Officers working during these assessed periods.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE C6 – STAFFING LEVELS
YEAR CODE OFFICERS
SUPERVISORS /
MANAGERS OTHER OFFICERS TOTAL
1999 3 0 3 6
2000 3 0 3 6
2001 3 0 2 5
2002 3 0 2 5
2003 3 0 2 5
2004 4 1 2 7
2005 5 1 3 9
2006 6 1 0 7
2007 6 1 0 7
2008 6 1 0 7
2009 7 1 1 9
2010 7 1 2 10
2011 5 1 2 8
2012 5 1 1 7
2013 7 1 2 10
2014 7 1 2 10
2015 7 1 2 10
2016 8 2 0 10
2017 8 2 0 10
2018 8 1 0 9
2019 7 1 0 8
* Other Enforcement Officers refers to Code Enforcement Officers that were assigned to other divisions (i.e. Sanitation, Planning, Building, Business License) in the City to only enforce that division’s specific code.
CASE TYPE: Code cases are characte rized with two case types, reactive or proactive. A reactive case is generated by a complaint submitted by the public that prompts an Officer to verify the existence of the alleged violation(s). A proactive case is where an Officer sees a violation(s) tha t impacts the public’s health and safety and creates a case without the need for a public complaint.
TABLE C7 - CASE TYPES
YEAR CASES REACTIVE PROACTIVE
2016 3166 2753 413
2017 3493 3149 344
2018 2474 2122 352
Public Safety Plan
Since 2016, the code Enforcement posture has been increasingly reactive when you consider the decreasing trend of proactive responses and the increasing amount of time it takes to close out cas es as evidenced in Table C4 by the increasing number of carry over cases.
Table C8 below summarizes the number of reactive cases were created each year over the past 4 years, and how the complaint was received.
TABLE C8 - CASE REPORT METHOD BREAKDOWN
YEAR
REACTIVE
CASES
IN
PERSON PHONE EMAIL
2018 2122 77 202 80
2019 2780 321 1317 531
Table C9 below summarizes the number of Code Compliance cases, inspections completed, Notices of Pendency filed and citations issued.
TABLE C9 – ENFORCEMENT STAGES
YEAR
NEW
CASES
CASES
CARRIED
OVER FROM
PRIOR YEAR(S)
INSPECTIONS
COMPLETED
NOPs
FILED
CITATIONS
ISSUED
1999
2000
2001 1482 1
2002 1588 38
2003 1264 6
2004 2400 12
2005 4216 10
2006 2816 76
2007 3155 1745
2008 3004 777
2009 2673 1688
2010 2593 2109
2011 2889 3 1095
2012 2734 3 1704
2013 2437 225 2102
2014 2852 119 1005
2015 3344 485 1679
2016 3166 545 1372
2017 3493 842* 533 1608
2018 2474 199 6587 276 1174
2019 3127 1183 7042 352 1373
*October 2017 conversion from Tidemark to Energov. *Stats are Energov only.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE C10 – CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS:
POSITION
NUMBER OF
POSITIONS
TOTAL STAFF
COST (TOP STEP
WITH FRINGE) ASSIGNMENT
Code Enforcement
Official 1 $180,000
Division Head for Code Compliance and
Business License
Admin Analyst
1 $120,000
City Business License Division Lead and
Code Compliance Division Lead Admin
Support
Secretary 1
2 $162,000
Customer service, case creation and support
for the Code Compliance Division and all
related reactive, proactive and regulatory
compliance programs Customer service and
general in-City/out-of-City licensing and
rental licensing, processing and program
support
Code Enforcement
Officer II 6 $612,000
Assigned reactive and proactive public
nuisance and court abatement action cases
Code Enforcement
Officer I 1 $90,000
Assigned routing City regulatory compliance
tasks supporting other City service
departments
Total Staff Cost
Annually 11 $1,164,000
TABLE C11 – CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS (VEHICLES):
EQUIPMENT TYPE AGE VALUE MILEAGE
3-2001 Dodge Dakotas 19 years $3,600 Approx 100,000
4-2005 Chevy Colorado's 15 years $5,700 Approx 65,000
1-2004 GMC Sonoma 16 years $6,000 Approx 50,000
1-2009 Ford Crown Victoria Sedan 11 years $2,200 Approx 70,000
TABLE C12 – CURRENT STAFF EQUIPMENT LEVELS (FIELD GEAR)
EQUIPMENT TYPE VALUE USE NOTES
7 Motorola Police HT Radios $3,000 each radio Officer safety - communications 6 Ballistic Vest and Outer Shell $1,000 each officer Officer safety - protection Duty and Inspection Gear $1,000 each officer
Officer safety - expandable baton, OC spray,
badge, humidity, temperature and electric
testers, drill and other small tools etc.
5-Ipad Pro 12" Tablets and
Cellular Service
$1,200 each + $480
annual cell service Officer productivity - communications Uniform Budget $500 annually Officer safety - uniform and foot protection
Public Safety Plan
5 YEAR NEEDS ASSESSMENT – FUTURE NEEDS
The need to expand the Code Compliance Division is driven by a need for timely service, the need to maintain the health and safety of our residential communities and commercial businesses, an increase in addressing complex and time -consuming societal chall enges such as homelessness, illegal marijuana grows and the need for expanded, proactive identification of code issues.
The summary below provides details on the added tasks, valued public benefits, and required supervision that will be achieved if Code Compliance field and support staff is increased.
In addition to increasing and enhancing compliance efforts for programs already in place, additional Code Compliance field staff will jointly address the following tasks:
TABLE C13- EXPANDED CODE COMPLIANCE SERVICE
ADDITIONAL TASK PUBLIC BENEFIT
Street Parking
Compliance
This task is currently under the Police. The public will see a faster response time and improve community appeal and reduce blight. The Police can focus on addressing other priorities
City Park Patrol
With anticipated population growth, additional weekend Code Officers will patrol City parks, address park reservation disputes and enforce our more commonly violated park regulations such as smoking, consuming alcohol or camping in the park.
Vacant Property
Registration Compliance
Officers will monitor and ensure compliance to the City's anticipated vacant property registration. This program will aim to reduce the blight impacts of vacant properties, expedite the containment or abatement needs as a result of a structure fire and reduce emergency response expenses related to vacant properties incidents
Proactive Weed
Abatement Enforcement
As an alternative to responding to public reports of dry noxious weeds, a more traditional approach will be applied through proactive weed abatement enforcement
To meet the public expectation needs and City Council community enhancement priorities, additional staff is needed to produce noticeable community improvements and enhance overall City appeal .
Proactive enforcement is often requested by residents and is anticipated in residential and commercial zones. Proactive enforcement will focus on property maintenance, street parking, land use, weed abatement and rental property inspections. Increased f ield staff will require supervision to ensure productivity, minimize liability risks and maintain enforcement work quality.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE C14 - RECOMMENDED STAFFING LEVELS
POSITION
CURRENT
POSITIONS
NEEDED
POSITIONS ASSIGNMENT
ADDITIONAL
STAFF COST
(TOP STEP
WITH
FRINGE) EXPLANATION
Code
Enforcement
Official
1 0
Division Head for
Code Compliance
and Business
Licensing
N/A N/A
Admin
Analyst 1 0
City Business
Licensing Lead
and Lead Code
Compliance
Division Admin
Support
N/A N/A
Secretary 1 -
Range 21
(Change to
Technician -
Range 29)
2 1 @ $98,000
each
______
2 range
changes @
$17,000 each
Customer service,
case creation and
support for the
Code Compliance
Division and all
related reactive,
proactive and
regulatory
compliance
programs
___________
Customer service
and general in-
City/out-of-City
licensing and rental
licensing,
processing and
program support
$132,000
The process for code
compliance complaint
intake, case creation, case
fee assessment and admin
support along with
business licensing intake
processing and issuance is
a significantly more
technical than the
expected Secretary I
tasks.
Senior Code
Officer -
Range 38
0 2 @
$110,000
each
Assigned to lead
field operations
during all work
days, Senior will
ensure policy and
city personnel
compliance,
productivity
enforcement
efforts and
manage complex
abatement
$220,000
These two positions are
needed to better manage
increase field
enforcement staff,
minimizing risk exposure
and officer safety.
Seniors will be working
during all workdays -
Anticipated to be 7 days
per week and later
evenings and weekends
Public Safety Plan
TABLE C14 - RECOMMENDED STAFFING LEVELS (CONT.)
POSITION
CURRENT
POSITIONS
NEEDED
POSITIONS ASSIGNMENT
ADDITIONAL
STAFF COST
(TOP STEP
WITH
FRINGE) EXPLANATION
Code
Enforcement
Officer II
6 1@ $102,000
each
Assigned reactive
and proactive
public nuisance and
court abatement
action cases
$102,000
Increase needed based
on existing and
increasing case loads
related to population
growth and aging
housing stock. Added
assignments; street
parking, proactive
residential and
commercial
enforcement, weed
abatement, increase
joint Police and Fire
tasks, trending impacts
from homeless,
marijuana and added
business compliance
regulations processes.
Code
Enforcement
Officer I
1 2@ $90,000
each
Assigned routine
city regulatory
compliance tasks
supporting other
City service
departments
$180,000
Increase needed based
on existing and
increasing case loads
related to population
growth business
growth, rental property
inspection and
licensing, general
business licensing
compliance and added
city regulatory tasks.
Total
Additional
Staff Cost
Annually
6 $634,000
Fleet efficiency and maintenance / usage cost can be improved by using same or closely similar vehicles.
Desired vehicle age limit is set to 15 years. Stated vehicle needs below assume that only current vehicle stock assigned to this division is 15 years or newer. Vehicles will be shared among staff who will be working staggered work shifts.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE C15 - NEEDED CAPITAL (VEHICLES)
EQUIPMENT TYPE AGE VALUE TOTAL COST NOTES
4 - 2020 Chevy Colorado's
or similar
New $31,000 $124,000
4 - 2022 Chevy Colorado's
or similar
New $31,000 $124,000 Replacement of 2005 Colorado's
1-2025 Ford Explorer New $35,000 $35,000 Replacement of 2009 Crown Victoria
5 Year Total $283,000 Lease to own option available to
spread vehicle cost over 5 to 7
years
Equipment needs are primarily one -time expenses. Select equipment with expiration dates (vest) or laptops/ tablets may require upgrade due to technology improvements. Equipment standardization is established to ensure productivity and allow for inter-changeable tasks.
TABLE C16 - NEEDED STAFF EQUIPMENT (FIELD GEAR)
EQUIPMENT TYPE VALUE TOTAL COST
TOTAL DIVISION COST
FOR REPLACEMENT ITEMS
OVER 5 YEARS
3 - Motorola Police HT
Radios
$5,000 each
radio $15,000 (one time) N/A
Contract with Sheriff
Dispatch for HT use
Approx $35,000
annually $35,000 annually N/A
7 - Ballistic Vests and
Outer Shells
$1,000 each
Officer
$7,000 (every 5-7
years due to
expiration)
$7,000 (vests for current staff
will still be good)
7 - Ipad Pro 12" tablets
and cellular service
$1,200 each +
$480 annual cell
service each
$8,400 (7 new
Ipads) $16,800 (total
annual cell service
for 5 years)
$6,000 (replace 5 Ipads for
current staff) + $12,000 cell
service (total annual cell service
for 5 years) + $25,200 (total cost
for new staff) = $43,200
7 - Uniform Budget $500 Annually
$3,500 Officer
safety - uniform and
foot protection
$30,000 (12 field staff x $500 x
5 years)
Total $85,700
Public Safety Plan
TABLE C17 – EXISTING/PROPOSED ORGANIZATION CHART
CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION/BUSINESS LICENSE DIVISION
Blue - Existing 9
Red - Proposed 6
Green - Title Change 2
Total Staffing 17
Code Enforcement Officer II
(Range 35)
Code Enforcement Officer II
(Range 35)
Code Enforcement Officer II
(Range 35)
Code Enforcement Officer I
(Range 30)
Code Enforcement Officer I
(Range 30)
Senior Code Enforcement Officer
(Range 38)
Code Enforcement Officer II
(Range 35)
Code Enforcement Officer II
(Range 35)
Code Enforcement Officer II
(Range 35)
Code Enforcement Officer II
(Range 35)
Code Enforcement Officer I
(Range 30)
Senior Code Enforcement Officer
(Range 38)
Technician
(Range 29)
Technician
(Range 29)
Technician
(Range 29)
Administrative Analyst
Licensing/Code Compliance
(Range 41)
Code Enforcement Official
Business License/Code Compliance
(Range 62)
Public Safety Plan
ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL
SECTION OVERVIEW
Through public participation, a partnership with a contract shelter provider and support from local businesses, the Animal Care and Control Division provides essential animal care services to residents, supports emergency responders to contain animals and ensures the public health through animal licensing and vaccination verification. This report provides operational information, h istorical and current statistics and an outlook on further improving and growing these services.
Notwithstanding the historical and current work performance and productivity, the report details the extensive tasks and responsibilities assigned to the Animal Care and Control Division, the limited staff levels and the need to expand public services related to the Animal Care and Control Division.
The historical section of this report takes a broad look at the statistical history through present -day Animal Care and Control Division operations. The report analyzes staffing levels, case statistics, operating conditions and case management processes.
The 5 -Year Assessment section of this report focuses on current and future Animal Care and Control Division operations. The report includes current and future staffing and operational needs, capital equipment needs, and projected fiscal impacts related to the expansion of the Animal Care and Control Division.
The information contained in this report origin ates from both prior and current City database and case management platforms.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION
The information below is intended to provide a general understanding of the Animal Care and Control Division’s case management methods and related staff workloads.
ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL CASES
Cases are used to document a public report related to the care of animals or to address urgent animal related service calls, such as animals on the street or containment to a ssist f ire and law enforcement.
Animal Control Officers also use cases to document proactive compliance actions initiated that may result in the assessment of a penalty or seizure of an animal, such as animal licensing. Through the completion
Public Safety Plan
of inspections, Of ficers can generally respond to as many as 25 cases per work day. Cases are identified by year and follow a sequential numbering system. Animal Care and Control case types include:
Rabies vaccination Animal licensing Animal abuse and neglect Pet grooming business regulations Stray animals Animal hoarding Breeder licensing Deceased animals Animal surrenders Animal noise Loose animals Animal containment
Private property animal quarantine Animal waste Animal hit by vehicle Animal bites and investigation Wild life containment Regulation of animal types
ACTIVE YEAR-TO-YEAR CASES
Animal Care and Control cases generally achieve prompt resolution resulting in the removal or containment of the animal, or licensing. Cases that require additional investigation through the Animal Care and Control Division or a local prosecutor remain open at the end of each calendar year and hold the same case year and case number until case closure. Some cases will remain active over an extended period of time until the violations are resolved and assessed fines/City expenses are paid.
Active cases from prior years are added to the list of newly created cases for that calendar year. Officers assess each case to determine if it is of high priority to e nsure these cases are addressed first. Officers manage cases by assigned area and follow a first in - first out approach as Officers aim to address older cases first.
CASE INSPECTIONS
Cases ge nerate inspections and are the o fficer’s primary work load indicator. Inspections follow an established compliance workflow process that prompts the officer to complete a specific task or compliance step (example: clear an animal from the street or contain an animal, issue a Notice of Violation, verify compliance or containment repair, document seizure or issue a citation).
At least one inspection is conducted in each case to validate the reported violation(s). On average, the completion of the initial inspection and related tasks will take the officer up to 35 minutes to complete.
When violations are found, the case progresses with additional compliance ins pections designed to guide the officer in the next compliance step. Typically, at least 1 inspection is completed, but as many as 7 inspections may be needed to be completed to gain compliance and achieve case closure.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE D1 - ANIMAL CONTROL CASE PROCESS
ADDITIONAL ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL ASSIGNMENTS
In addition to completing animal related inspections, the Animal Care and Control Division also completes the following tasks:
• TRANSPORTATION OF ANIMALS TO CONTRACT SHELTER - Officers transport lost/found or surrendered animals at least once per day to our contract animal shelter located in the far north -east area of Apple Valley, where animals are sheltered and evaluated for adoption. The time it takes to transport an animal to Apple Valley reduces officer availability to attend to issues occurring in the Victorville community.
• MANAGEMENT OF TEMPORARY ANIMAL HOLDING FACILITY – The Palmdale Road facility is utilized to quarantine animals involved in a bite or other circumstanc es that require the animal to be under supervision. The facility is also used by law enforcement to temporarily hold an animal after an arrest. Animal Control Officers manage the complete care of the sheltered animals and maintain the facility on a daily basis.
• SPECIMEN TESTING – Where an animal biting occurs, p reparation of an animal for clinical rabies testing performed by the County Public Health Department in Ontario is required. An animal is typically prepared for these examinations by a veterinarian, however, on a rare occasion such an after -hours bite to a Law Enforcement Officer, staff prepares the animal for testing and transports the animal to the designated County facility.
Close Case
Take Photos
No Violation
1st Inspection
Close Case
Take Photos
No Violation
Notice of Violation
Close Case
Take Photos
No Violation
Compliance Inspection
Close Case
Take Photos
No Violation
Citation Inspection
Close Case
Take Photos
No Violation
Citation Inspection Compliance Inspection
Animal Control Case Process
Public Safety Plan
• COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND HUMANE EDUCATION – Animal Control Officers are often invited to provide humane education to students at local public schools. Officers provide information relating to proper animal care, the importance of animal vaccinations and the benefits of animal licensing.
• REQUIRED SHOT CLINICS – The Animal Care and Control Division holds at least two shot clinics per year as required by law. The Division takes the opportunity to also license and microchip animals and provides an opportuni ty for our contract shelter to showcase animals available for adoption.
• ON-CALL RESPONSE - Animal Control Officers are on -call throughout the calendar year and are available to respond to emergencies reported by all law enforcement agencies operating within the City. Officers respond to incidents on state highways located within the City and animal related emergencies that immediately jeopardize vehicular traffic.
• VETERINARY SERVICES FOR THE CARE OF SELECT ANIMALS – Animal Control Officers often initiate emergency veterinary care for injured, abandoned or neglected animals.
These emergency measures often require the officer to stay with the animal until the veterinarian can attend to the animal, resulting in a temporary field staff shortage. These measures require follow-up and sheltering coordination for the animal after treatment.
STAFFING LEVELS
The table below summarizes the number of budgeted Animal Control Officers, Animal Control Lead Officers and Supervisors and Managers. Budgeted positi ons do not equal the actual number of Officers working during these assessed periods. In many cases, actual number is less than budgeted due to a variety of factors.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE D2 - ANIMAL CONTROL STAFFING LEVELS
YEAR OFFICERS LEAD
OFFICERS SUP/MGR TOTAL
1999 3 0 0 3
2000 1 1 0 2
2001 2 1 0 3
2002 2 1 0 3
2003 2 1 0 3
2004 2 0 1 3
2005 3 1 1 5
2006 3 1 1 5
2007 3 1 1 5
2008 3 1 1 5
2009 4 1 0 5
2010 3 1 0 4
2011 4 0 0 4
2012 4 1 0 5
2013 3 1 0 4
2014 3 1 0 4
2015 3 1 0 4
2016 4 1 0 5
2017 4 1 0 5
2018 4 1 1 6
2019 4 1 1 6
The table below summarizes the number of cases that were created each year over the past 10-years. An Animal Care and Control case is created by either Animal Control support staff when the public submits a complaint or a license is expired, or proactively by an Animal Control Officer for a violation(s) that is occurring at a specific location and are inspected by Animal Control Officers.
TABLE D3 - CASE SUMMARY
YEAR CASES INSPECTIONS
COMPLETED
CITATIONS
ISSUED
ANIMAL CONTROL
LICENSES
2010 7128 N/A 91 2789
2011 7677 N/A 311 2262
2012 6933 N/A 193 1877
2013 6467 N/A 95 1767
2014 6413 N/A 193 2135
2015 6574 N/A 520 2148
2016 6696 N/A 580 2076
2017 5923 1133* 269 2168
2018 5457 6248 265 3348
2019 5430 6742 205 3231
Public Safety Plan
* Transitioning from the previous Tidemark database system to the new Energov database system.
The table below summarizes the number of after -hour phone calls that were received by Victorville’s dispatch service provider for the past 5 years.
TABLE D4 - ANIMAL CONTROL DISPATCH SERVICES
YEAR
TOTAL
CALLS
CALLS
OUT TO
OFFICERS
CALLS
TRANSFERRED
TO OFFICERS
MESSAGES
TAKEN FOR
THE
OFFICE
HANG
UP /
SALES
CALLS
NO
MESSAGE
TAKEN
CALLS
2015 10507 2927 114 3462 1337 2667
2016 9771 3306 146 3372 1599 1348
2017 9932 3151 214 3529 1558 1480
2018 8765 2727 144 3233 1432 1229
2019 7597 2453 112 3255 1248 529
A brief summary of each type of call:
➢ Incoming Calls are the total number of after -hour phone calls received by dispatch for Animal Control.
➢ Calls Out to Officers are the number of times that dispatch contacts an Officer regarding a call that they have received.
➢ Calls Transferred to Officers are the number of calls that dispatch connects directly to an Officer. ➢ Messages Taken for the Office are the number of calls that dispatch receives where the caller leaves a message for staff.
➢ Hang Up/Sales Calls are the number of calls that dispatch receives that are hang ups or telemarketer calls.
➢ No Message Taken Calls are the number of calls that dispatch receives where the caller indicates they will call back on the next business day or it may be a duplicate call.
After review of dispatch data, it appears that there is a large amount of calls that are received shortly after Animal Control closes each da y. Calls that go out to officers after hours require overtime pay. By extending Animal Control open hours, this could reduce the amount of overtime that is required and better service our residents.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE D5 - CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS
POSITION
CURRENT
POSITION
TOTAL STAFF
COST (TOP
STEP WITH
FRINGE) ASSIGNMENT
Animal Control
Manager 1 $143,000
Manage all Animal Control operations,
personnel and the divisional budget
Animal Control
Community
Outreach Officer 1 $102,000
Position needed to improve the relationship
between the residents and Animal Care and
Control, provide education to community
groups and schools and assist Animal
Control Officers with the workload
Secretary I 1 $81,000
Assigned case intake, officer dispatching
and animal licensing.
Animal Control
Lead Officer 1 $89,000
Senior officer and backup to supervisor.
Coordinates animal care operations and
lead officer for animal bite cases. Part of
on call staff list. Responds to escalated
public complaints.
Animal Control
Officer 3 $78,000 each
Respond to loose, dangerous or abused
animal requests from the public and public
agencies. Regularly supports Police and
Fire departments to restrain animals.
Enforces animal licensing laws. Supports
off-site contract animal shelter operations.
Part of on call staff list.
Total Staff Cost
Annually 7 $649,000
TABLE D6 - CURRENT CAPITAL LEVELS (VEHICLES)
EQUIPMENT TYPE AGE VALUE MILEAGE
1 - 2006 GMC Sierra 3500 14 years $3,500 232,400
1 - 2003 Chevy 2500 17 years $3,500 186,600
1 - 2015 Ford F250 5 years $15,000 60,420
1 - 2017 Ford F250 3 years $20,000 23,800
1 - 2016 Ford F150 4 years $15,000
Vehicle funded by Sanitation and currently has
Code Enforcement decals. Vehicle due back to
Sanitation
Public Safety Plan
TABLE D7 - CURRENT EQUIPMENT LEVELS (FIELD GEAR)
EQUIPMENT TYPE VALUE USE NOTES
0 - Motorola Police HT Radios
$3,000 each
Radio Officer safety - communications
5 - Motorola two way 800mhz
Radios
$1,500 each
Radio Officer safety - communications
5 - Ballistic Vests and Outer
Shells
$1,000 each
Officer
Officer safety - protection. Requires
replacement every 6 years
Duty and Inspection Gear
$700 each
Officer
Officer safety - expandable baton, OC
spray, badge, gloves, animal stick, storge
boxes and other small tools, etc.
5 - Ipads 9" tablets and cellular
service
$800 each +
$480 annual cell
service Officer productivity - communication
Uniform Budget $500 annually Officer safety - uniform and foot protection
The need to expand the Animal Care and Control Division is driven by an increase in human and animal population, increase in region vehicular traffic, the increase in stray and abandoned animals, the increase of emergency request from emergency responders related all animal matters, the need for improved spay and neuter education and the need to increase public animal licensing compliance. Additionally, time consuming societal challenges such as homelessness and increasing animal neglect issues continue to strain the City.
Expanded Animal Care and Control services will yield an increase in animal licensing, increased public educational opportunities, increased response times for common animal related public nuisances and improved animal health and services.
The City’s five year goal is to significantly improve Animal Care and Control field operations, animal licensing and fiscal performance. To reach these goals, an Animal Control Manager and additional Supervisors and Officers and are needed to produce noticeable animal care community improvements and adhere to reasonable animal euthanization rates. Added Officers will require added supervision to ensure productivity, minimize liability risks and maintain enforcement work quality.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE D8 - RECOMMENDED STAFFING LEVELS
POSITION
CURRENT
POSITIONS
NEEDED
POSITIONS ASSIGNMENT
ADDITIONAL
STAFF COST
(TOP STEP WITH
FRINGE) EXPLANATION
Animal Control
Manager (Range
49)
1 0
Manage all Animal Control
operations, personnel and the
division budget
N/A N/A
Animal Control
Community
Outreach Officer
(Range 35)
1 0
Meet with citizens and
community groups to resolve
customer service related
problems / complaints and
assist Lead Officer and
Manager with neighbor dispute
mitigation and resolution
N/A N/A
Secretary 1
(Range 21) 1 1 @ $81,000
each
Assist case intake, officer
dispatch and animal licensing
operations
$81,000
Animal Control complaint
intake, dispatching, case
creation, case fee
assessment and admin
support. Two are needed to
keep up with the current
workload
Animal Control
Lead Officer
(Range 28)
1 @ $89,000
each
Senior Officer and backup to
Manager. Coordinates animal
care operations and Lead
Officer for animal bite cases.
Part of on call staff list.
Reponsible for escalated
public complaints
$89,000
Added Officer needed to
lead Animal Control
Officers during operations 7
days per week and minimize
overtime. Lead Officer will
ensure all Officers are
proactively addressing City
animal licensing tasks
Animal Control
Officer (Range
24)
3 2 @ $78,000
each
Responds to loose, dangerous
or abused animal request from
the public and public agencies.
Regularly supports Police and
Fire Department to restrain
animals. Enforces animal
licensing laws. Supports off-
site contract animal shelter
operations. Part of on-call
staff list
$156,000
Added positions needed to
address high volume of calls
and provide more timely
responses. Added staff will
provide relief to already
strained staff workloads.
Total Staff Cost
Annually 4 $326,000
Fleet efficiency and maintenance / usage cost can be improved by using same or closely similar vehicles.
Desired vehicle age limit is set to 15 years. Stated vehicle needs below assume that only current vehicle stock assigned to this division is 15 years or newer. Vehicles will be shared among staff who will be working staggered work shifts.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE D9 - RECOMMENDED CAPITAL NEEDS
EQUIPMENT TYPE AGE VALUE TOTAL COST
3 - 2020 Ford F250 or
similar and Box New
$35,000 +
$18,000 box
$159,000 (Replacement of 2003 Chevy 2500.
Adding two more vehicles for added staff)
1 - 2022 Ford F250 or
similar New
$35,000 +
$18,000 box
$53,000 (Replacement of 2006 GMC Sierra
3500)
5 Year Total
$212,000 (Lease to own option available to
spread vehicle cost over 5 to 7 years. Does not
apply to box expenses.)
Equipment needs are primarily one -time expenses. Select equipment with expatriation dates (vest) or laptops/tablets may require upgrade due to technology improvements. Equipment standardization is established to ensure productivity and allow for inter-changeable tasks.
TABLE D10 - RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT (FIELD GEAR)
EQUIPMENT TYPE VALUE TOTAL COST
TOTAL DIVISION COST FOR
REPLACEMENT ITEMS OVER
5 YEARS
6 - Motorola Police HT
Radios
$3,000 each
Radio $18,000 (one time) N/A
Contract with Sheriff
Dispatch for HT use
Approx $10,000
annually $10,000 annually $50,000 ($10,000 x 5 years)
5 - Ballistic Vests and
Outer Shells
$1,000 each
Officer
$5,000 (every 5-7 years
due to expiration)
$5,000 (vests for current staff will
still be good)
5 - Duty and Animal
Control Gear
$800 each
Officer $4,000 (one time)
$4,000 (equipment for current staff
replaced as needed)
5 - Ipad tablets and
cellular service
$800 each +
$480 annual cell
service
$4,000 Ipads (every 5
years) + $2,400 annually
for cell service
$4,800 (replace Ipads for current
staff) + $4,000 +$26,400 cell
service = $35,200
Uniform Budget $500 annually
$5,500 Officer safety -
uniform and foot
protection
$27,500 (11 field staff x $500 x 5
years)
Total $121,700
Public Safety Plan
TABLE D11 - EXISTING/PROPOSED ORGANIZATION CHART- ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION
Blue - Existing 7
Red - Proposed 6
Total Staffing 13
Animal Control Officer
(Range 24)
Animal Control Officer
(Range 24)
Animal Control Officer
(Range 24)
Animal Control Officer
(Range 24)
Animal Control Lead Officer
(Range 28)
Animal Control Officer
(Range 24)
Animal Control Officer
(Range 24)
Animal Control Officer
(Range 24)
Animal Control Lead Officer
(Range 28)
Animal Control Community
Outreach Officer
(Range 35)
Secretary I
(Range 21)
Secretary I
(Range 21)
Animal Control Manager
(Range 49)
Public Safety Plan
FINANCIAL
Victorville currently operates under the amended 19 -20 fiscal budget which for all City operations, comprises an expenditure plan of approximately $254.2 million. The tot al spending plan authorizes 424 full-time employees. The City’s General Fund, which s hall be the focus of resources available to support public safety operations, comprises $66.9 million in revenue and $64.92 million in expenditures, with a proposed revenue surplus of $1.98 million. The total unencumbered general fund balance as of June 3 0, 2019 amounted to $12.8 million or approximately 19.7% of the 19/20 operating expenses. The 19/20 fiscal budget reported for the first time that the City had achieved and exceeded its general fund reserve target of 15%. It was further reported by staff that this reserve fund should be intended to serve both as a rainy day fund and as an operating/capital reserve for the City. Table E1 illustrates the trending of t he City’s general fund reserve.
Table E1 - General Fund Reserve Balances
Projections of general fund cash flow are illustrated in Table E2, below. Those projections do not include any increase in staffing levels for public safety and represent staff’s best estimate based on known cost of service upon adoption of the amended 19/ 20 fiscal budget . Table E2 projects that into the 21/22 fiscal year, revenues and expenditures begin to intersect, signifying expenditure growth out pacing revenue growth. These projections further show that for fiscal year 21/22 going forward, the gener al fund will deficit spend, unless supplemental revenue can be identified, until it runs out of general fund cash reserve in 26/27 fiscal year. Including the 19/20 fiscal year, revenues increase by $3.19 million or 4.77% through the 23/24 fiscal year. Including the 19/20 fiscal year, expenses increase by $ 8.92 million or 13.74% 2,229,649
781,523
5,047,053
3,238,364
6,178,917
12,812,405
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Public Safety Plan
through the 23/24 fiscal year, illustrating expenditure growth at a higher growth rate than revenue growth rate.
TABLE E2 - PROJECTED CASH FLOWS (19/20 MIDYEAR BUDGET)
Fiscal Year 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 Revenues
Taxes 46,232,517 46,694,842 47,161,791 47,633,408 48,109,743 48,590,840 49,076,748 49,567,516 Licenses & Permits 1,978,250 1,998,033 2,018,013 2,038,193 2,058,575 2,079,161 2,099,952 2,120,952 Fines and Forfeitures 162,300 163,923 165,562 167,218 168,890 170,579 172,285 174,008 Intergovernmental 77,500 78,275 79,058 79,848 80,647 81,453 82,268 83,090 Charges for Services 3,142,468 3,205,317 3,269,424 3,334,812 3,401,508 3,469,539 3,538,929 3,609,708 Investment Income 867,538 876,214 884,976 893,825 902,764 911,791 920,909 930,118 Pass Through 5,609,000 5,665,090 5,721,741 5,778,958 5,836,748 5,895,115 5,954,067 6,013,607 Transfers In 52,000 52,520 53,045 53,576 54,111 54,653 55,199 55,751 Cost Allocations Received 8,196,734 8,360,669 8,527,882 8,698,440 8,872,408 9,049,857 9,230,854 9,415,471 Misc. Revenue 579,212 585,004 590,854 596,763 602,730 608,758 614,845 620,994 Total Revenues 66,897,519 67,679,886 68,472,345 69,275,042 70,088,125 70,911,745 71,746,056 72,591,215 Expenditures
Personnel 23,119,413 23,812,995 24,527,385 25,263,207 26,021,103 26,801,736 27,605,788 28,433,962 Sheriff Contract 27,733,208 29,075,443 30,529,215 32,055,676 33,658,460 34,668,213 35,708,260 36,779,508 Operations and Maintenance 12,167,788 12,471,983 12,783,782 13,103,377 13,430,961 13,766,735 14,110,904 14,463,676 Debt Service 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 Total Operating
Expenditures 63,251,119 65,591,131 68,071,093 70,652,970 73,341,234 75,467,395 77,655,662 79,907,856 Capital 1,676,648 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,001 502,002 Total Expenditures 64,924,920 66,093,131 68,573,093 71,154,970 73,843,234 75,969,395 78,157,663 80,409,858 Surplus/(Deficit) 1,972,599 1,586,755 (100,748) (1,879,928) (3,755,109) (5,057,650) (6,411,606) (7,818,643) Cash VMUS Loan Payment 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 700,000 General Fund Reserves 15,785,004 18,371,760 19,271,012 18,391,084 15,635,975 11,278,325 4,866,718 (2,951,925)
The projections above do not take into account the current state of emergency at the national, state and local levels. Orders that have been issued encouraging residents to stay at home to help reduce the pandemic spread of the COVID -19 virus is affecting revenue generation that very likely will require the City to use its general fund reserves if it intends to maintain service levels. Until the current global pandemic, the City’s general fund had been considered in a stable position however , it is safe t o assume that the projected deficit spending will accelerate. Based on current projections provided to the City by its sales tax consultant, HDL Companies, Table E3 has been prepared to highlight the estimated effects of the global pandemic.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE E3 – MIDYEAR GENERAL FUND COVID PROJECTED CASH FLOWS Fiscal Year 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 Revenues
Taxes 43,442,517 42,526,942 43,136,074 45,972,517 46,432,242 46,896,565 47,365,530 47,839,186 Licenses & Permits 1,978,250 1,998,033 2,018,013 2,038,193 2,058,575 2,079,161 2,099,952 2,120,952 Fines and Forfeitures 162,300 163,923 165,562 167,218 168,890 170,579 172,285 174,008 Intergovernmental 77,500 78,275 79,058 79,848 80,647 81,453 82,268 83,090 Charges for Services 3,142,468 3,205,317 3,269,424 3,334,812 3,401,508 3,469,539 3,538,929 3,609,708 Investment Income 867,538 876,214 884,976 893,825 902,764 911,791 920,909 930,118 Pass Through 5,609,000 5,665,090 5,721,741 5,778,958 5,836,748 5,895,115 5,954,067 6,013,607 Transfers In 52,000 52,520 53,045 53,576 54,111 54,653 55,199 55,751 Cost Allocations Received 8,196,734 8,360,669 8,527,882 8,698,440 8,872,408 9,049,857 9,230,854 9,415,471 Misc. Revenue 579,212 585,004 590,854 596,763 602,730 608,758 614,845 620,994 Total Revenues 64,107,519 63,511,986 64,446,629 67,614,150 68,410,624 69,217,470 70,034,838 70,862,884 Expenditures
Personnel 23,119,413 23,812,995 24,527,385 25,263,207 26,021,103 26,801,736 27,605,788 28,433,962 Sheriff Contract 27,733,208 29,100,523 30,555,549 32,083,327 33,687,493 34,698,118 35,739,061 36,811,233 Operations and Maintenance 12,151,096 12,438,386 12,749,346 13,068,080 13,394,782 13,729,651 14,072,892 14,424,715 Debt Service 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 Total Operating
Expenditures 63,234,427 65,582,615 68,062,990 70,645,323 73,334,088 75,460,215 77,648,452 79,900,620 Capital 1,676,648 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,001 502,002 Total Expenditures 64,924,920 66,084,615 68,564,990 71,147,323 73,836,088 75,962,215 78,150,453 80,402,622 Surplus/(Deficit) (817,401) (2,572,628) (4,118,362) (3,533,173) (5,425,463) (6,744,745) (8,115,615) (9,539,737) Cash VMUS Loan Payment 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 700,000 General Fund Reserves 12,995,004 11,422,376 8,304,014 5,770,841 1,345,378 (4,699,368) (12,814,982) (22,354,720)
Table E3 above considers revenues versus expenditures approved as a part of the City’s mid -year budget and it also includes downward adjustments in sales tax revenue for the current 19/20 fiscal year to suggest potential effects of the COVID -19 pandemic. Compared to Table E2, the COVID projections suggest a reduction in tax revenue in the current (19/20) fisca l year of $2. 79 million, an approximate 4.2% reduction in total general fund revenues. Table E3 further projects a revenue decline in the 20/21 fiscal year of approximately $4.2 million before general fund revenue begins to increase in the 21/22 fiscal year.
The tax revenue projections assume a recovery to 18/19 sales tax levels in the 22/23 fiscal year. Without an alteration to general fund expenditure levels, for illustration purposes, the COVID related projections identify a deficit spending of $817,401 in the current (19/20) fiscal year as opposed to pre -COVID projections not suggesting a deficit spending until the 22/23 fiscal year. The COVID related projections further identify a need to begin relying on general fund reserves to balance general fund expenditures in the 20/21 fiscal year as opposed to the 22/23 fiscal year. The COVID related projections suggest that without an increase i n revenue a reduction in service levels (expenditures) or a combination of both, the general fund will go negative in the 24/25 fiscal year.
Anticipating a near term deficit spending in the general fund as provided for in Table E3 above, the City should consider funding options if it is desirous of enhancing public services without reducing the service level of other programs currently being funded by the general fund.
Public Safety Plan
FUNDING OPTIONS
The general fund revenues largely consist of Sales and Us e Tax, Propert y Tax, Occupancy T ax and Franchise Fees. Because Franchise Fees are established and are based upon negotiated agreements with utility providers, they are not going to be focused upon for this analysis.
SALES AND USE TAX: In California, sales tax is applied to all retail sales of goods and m erchandise that are not otherwise exempt pursuant to State law. In Victorville, sales tax is applied to taxable sales at a rate of 7.75%. Use Tax is similarly applied for sale of goods from retailers outside of the State of California but consumed inside the State of California. Table E4 illustrates where sales tax in Victorville goes:
TABLE E4 - SALES TAX BREAKDOWN IN VICTORVILLE
California General Fund 3.6875%
California General Fund .25%
California Public Safety .5%
California Local Revenue 1.0625%
California Health & Social Services .50%
County Transportation .25%
Victorville General Fund 1.0%
Measure I .50%
Total 7.75%
Based on Victorville’s total audited financials, the 1.0% share of sales tax generated to its general fund amounted to $22.96 million which means gross taxable sales in the Victorville market amounted to $2.296 billion. The following chart illustrates the trend in sales tax revenue since the 07/08 fiscal year.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE E5 - GENERAL FUND SALES TAX REVENUE
State law provides residents of a community the ability to a uthorize an increase in the sales t ax levied, increasing the level of general fund revenues available to fund either a specific or general purpose.
GENERAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX: Revenue & Taxation Code 7285.9 authorizes a City to levy a Transaction & Use Tax, for general purposes at a rate of .125% or increments of .125 % if an ordinance proposing the tax is approved by a 2/3 vote of its legislati ve body and the tax is approved by a majority (50%+1) of the qualified voters of the city voting in an election on the issue. California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7251.1 provides for a Transactions and Use Tax to be levied up to an amount that doesn’t exceed 2%. In this case, Victorville residents could be offered the opportunity to consider a measure that increases the local sales tax rate from 7.75% to 9.75%.
SPECIAL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX: As an alternative to the General Transaction and Use Tax, Section 7285.91 provides the governing body of any city, the authority to levy a transaction, charged and collected in the same manner as a sales tax, for specific purposes, at a rate of .125 % or in increments of .125% if an ordinance proposing the tax is approved by a 2/3 vote of the members of the governing body and is subsequently approved by a 2/3 vote of the qualified voters of the city voting in the election on the issue. This type of tax also requires an expenditure plan. California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 19,840,200
15,967,225 15,171,815
19,447,976
20,974,688
22,957,781
21,902,930
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Public Safety Plan
7251.1 provides for a Transactions and Use Tax to be levied up to an amount that doesn’t exceed 2%. In this case, Victorville residents could be offered to the opportunity to consider a measure that increases the local sales tax rate from 7.75% to 9.75%.
Victorville last proposed a Special Transactions and Use Tax, referred to as Measure K in November of 2017. That Measure proposed a $0.50 sales tax and was specifically intended to be spent on public safety. The Measure gained 62% voter approval but did not meet the 66.67% or 2/3 majority required for a special tax to pass. A special tax may be considered at any regularly established election. A general tax must be considered at a general election at which membe rs of the City Council are elected (November 2020 or November 2022).
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: Governed by Municipal Code Section 3.12.030, Victorville charges hotel and motel occupants within the City, a tax of 7% of the cost to rent a hotel/motel unit. The tax is charged to the hotel occupant, collected by the hotel/motel operator and remitted to the City on a quarterly basis.
Victorville last attempted to increase its Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) by ballot measure in November of 2008. Ballot Measure C was considered at the November election and had proposed to raise the TOT from 7% to 10% and garnered 38.6% in favor and 61.4 opposed. The measure failed due to it not receiving a majority (50% ≥) vote.
PARCEL TAX: A parcel tax is a form of special tax levied against a piece of real property to benefit a specific municipal purpose. A parcel tax levy can be established as a flat or variable rate and gets levied on a property tax bill, collected by the County Tax collector and paid to the taxing entity at the same time $-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Thousands
Fiscal Year
TOT Received
564,548
957,328 964,075
841,113
1,487,091
Public Safety Plan
property tax disbursements are made by the County. The City last considered a parcel tax in 2017 as a function of its deliberation over whether or not it should ann ex into San Bernardino County Fire Protection District #5. The parcel tax proposed at the time amounted to $153 per parcel and was projected to raise approximately $5.8 million annually, plus an inflationary factor . Victorville chose in January 2018 to pur sue operational cost savings by forming its own city run fire department as opposed to pursuing a special parcel tax.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Among the funding options discussed above, staff considered the department recommendations and modeled those recommendations against costs associated with the most demonstrated need for service enhancement, balancing the need to meet its general fund reserve target of 15% and building a general fund reserve sufficient enough to cash flow deficit spending . Staff also considered a model that provides the City Council with discretion to use some of its projected surplus reserve funds to invest in other desired community impro vements. This model recommends a 1% General Transaction and Use Tax (TUT) which best offers the City Council flexibility in developing and funding policy decisions such as enhanced public safety, public library improvements, public park improvements and improved fiscal target reserves. A General TUT is projected to raise approximately $15.95 million in the 21/22 fiscal year, normalizing in the 22/23 fiscal year to pre -pandemic levels and increasing annually at a rate of 1% annually thereafter. Among the service level recommendations provided earlier in this report by staff, the only service enhancements that need to be placed on hold are the fire service enhancements recommended in years 4 and 5. Notwithstanding the adjustments to the fire service recommendations, the model does include debt service to help finance investments in apparatus.
Public Safety Plan
TABLE E6 – SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROJECTIONS
Fiscal Year 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 Revenues
Taxes 43,442,517 42,526,942 43,136,074 45,972,950 46,432,680 46,897,006 47,365,976 47,839,636 Transaction and Use Tax - 5,190,100 15,950,972 17,000,000 17,170,000 17,341,700 17,515,117 17,690,268 Licenses & Permits 1,978,250 1,998,033 2,018,013 2,038,193 2,058,575 2,079,161 2,099,952 2,120,952 Fines and Forfeitures 162,300 163,923 165,562 167,218 168,890 170,579 172,285 174,008 Intergovernmental 77,500 78,275 79,058 79,848 80,647 81,453 82,268 83,090 Charges for Services 3,142,468 3,205,317 3,269,424 3,334,812 3,401,508 3,469,539 3,538,929 3,609,708 Investment Income 867,538 876,214 884,976 893,825 902,764 911,791 920,909 930,118 Pass Through 5,609,000 5,665,090 5,721,741 5,778,958 5,836,748 5,895,115 5,954,067 6,013,607 Transfers In 52,000 52,520 53,045 53,576 54,111 54,653 55,199 55,751 Cost Allocations Received 8,196,734 8,360,669 8,527,882 8,698,440 8,872,408 9,049,857 9,230,854 9,415,471 Misc. Revenue 579,212 585,004 590,854 596,763 602,730 608,758 614,845 620,994 Total Revenues 64,107,519 68,702,086 80,397,601 84,614,583 85,581,061 86,559,611 87,550,401 88,553,603 Expenditures
Personnel 23,119,413 23,812,995 24,527,385 25,263,207 26,021,103 26,801,736 27,605,788 28,433,962 Sherrif Contract 27,733,208 29,100,523 30,555,549 32,083,327 33,687,493 34,698,118 35,739,061 36,811,233 Sherrif Services
Enhancement 5,980,000 6,279,000 6,592,950 6,790,739 6,994,461 7,204,294 Fire Services Enhancement 1,866,000 1,410,000 1,369,200 1,174,200 1,209,426 1,257,803 1,308,115 Code Compliance
Enhancement 1,004,200 653,020 672,611 692,789 713,573 734,980 Animal Control
Enhancement 659,700 339,040 349,211 359,688 370,478 381,593 Operations and Maintenance 12,151,096 12,438,386 12,749,346 13,068,080 13,394,782 13,729,651 14,072,892 14,424,715 Debt Service 230,710 230,710 230,710 230,710 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Total Operating
Expenditures 63,234,427 67,448,615 77,116,890 79,285,583 82,142,349 84,532,146 87,004,056 89,548,892 Capital 1,676,648 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,001 502,002 Total Expenditures 64,924,920 67,950,615 77,618,890 79,787,583 82,644,349 85,034,146 87,506,057 90,050,894 Surplus/(Deficit) (817,401) 751,472 2,778,710 4,827,000 2,936,712 1,525,465 44,344 (1,497,290) Cash VMUS Loan Payment 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 700,000 General Fund Reserves 12,995,004 14,746,476 18,525,186 24,352,186 28,288,898 30,514,364 30,558,708 29,061,417 General Fund Reserve
Requirement (15%) 9,864,344 10,319,454 11,770,964 12,097,549 12,527,358 12,887,135 13,259,242 13,642,301 Surplus Reserve for
Capital 3,130,660 4,427,022 6,754,222 12,254,637 15,761,540 17,627,229 17,299,466 15,419,117
Table E6 above, highlights revenues exceeding expenditures for the first six years of the model, with deficit spending projected to take place in the 26/27 fiscal year. The general fund reserve is exceeded through the 26/27 fiscal year, reaching a peak general fund reserv e fund surplus of $17.6 million in the 24/25 fiscal year. This surplus can be used for general discretionary purposes of the City Council while still maintaining its general fund reserve target, however, beginning in the 26/27 fiscal year, some form or general fund reserve or service level reduction will be required to balance the budget. To illustrate the projected life of the general fund, presuming general fund surplus revenues are not spent for other discretionary purposes, this model projects that it c ould deficit spend before running out of general fund cash in the 31/32 fiscal year. Table E6 above has been prepared for illustration purposes and contains a variety of assumptions that should be evaluated annually to more appropriately de termine public safety
Public Safety Plan
services. Finally, to pursue a General Transactions and Use Tax, in the upcoming election, the Council should be mindful of the following schedule established by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters:
Tasks
Receive Resolution E-116 Jul 10, 2020 E-88 Aug 7, 2020
Prepare Notice of Election E-115 Jul 11, 2020 E-87 Aug 8, 2020 1st day of publication in the newspaper E-109 Jul 17, 2020 E-81 Aug 14, 2020 Impartial Analysis E-106 Jul 20, 2020 @ 5pm E-78 Aug 17, 2020 @ 5pm Deadline for Arguments E-106 Jul 20, 2020 @ noon E-78 Aug 17, 2020 @ noon Deadline for Rebuttals E-102 Jul 24, 2020 @ 5pm E-74 Aug 21, 2020 @ 5pm End of 10-day public examination period
for Arguments E-96 Jul 30, 2020 @ noon E-68 Aug 27, 2020 @ noon end of 10-day public examination period
for Rebuttals E-92 Aug 3, 2020 @ 5pm E-64 Aug 30, 2020 @ 5pm Measure Letter assignment E-85
Measure withdrawal E-83
Submitted by E-88Submitted by E-116
Aug 10, 2020 @ 11am
Aug 12, 2020 @5pm
ESTABLISHED DEADLINES FOR MEASURES
Measure deadlines
Public Safety Plan
EXHIBIT A
Public Safety Plan
EXHIBIT A1
8 BEAT SYSTEM
Public Safety Plan
EXHIBIT A2
9 BEAT SYSTEM
Public Safety Plan
EXHIBIT A3
10 BEAT SYSTEM
Public Safety Plan
EXHIBIT A4
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
53,598
45,000
35,799
27,460
22,703
21,008
27,776
45,189
69,575
79,566
85,365
92,506
95,963
97,053
100,020
102,470
97,622
92,179
85,512
82,090
83,636
78,630
72,078
62,821
2008 - 2019 Total Calls-for-Service by
Time-of-Day
Public Safety Plan
EXHIBIT A5
Public Safety Plan
EXHIBIT B1
Public Safety Plan
EXHIBIT B2
Public Safety Plan
EXHIBIT B3
APPARATUS TYPING
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established defined categories of fire apparatus to ensure common terminology and characteristics in mutual aid planning. NFPA 1901 provides further standards on each type
TYPE 1 STRUCTURE ENGINE
Typical Type 1 Engine
A Type 1 Structure Engine is de signed for structural
fire fighting. Minimum requirements include a pump
that operates at 1000 gallons per minute (gpm), a 300-
gallon water tank, 1200 ft. 2 1/2″ hose, 400 ft. 1 1/2 ” hose, 200 ft. 1″ hose, 20 + feet of ladder, a 500 gpm
Master Stream. Typ e 1 engines are designed to
operate on paved roads. Type 1 engines carry
specialized equipment to support their structure,
medical and rescue mission areas. Currently, the City
operates with four frontline Type 1 engines. Type 1
engines are staffed with a minimum of three qualified
personnel.
Public Safety Plan
TYPE 3 WILDLAND ENGINE
Typical Type 3 Engine
TYPE 6 ENGINE/PATROL
Typical Type 6 Engine
Type 3 Wildland Engines are designed to support fire
suppression operations in off -road or areas difficult to access. Type 3 engines are a four -wheel drive for off - road capability. NFPA 1906 establishes standards for
Type 3 engines. Minimums include 150 g pm pumping
capability, a large 500 -gallon water tank, 1000 ft. 1
1/2″ hose, 800 ft. 1″ and a complement of wildland
tools. Type 3 engines are capable of a technique
referred to as pump -and-roll. This is a tactic where the vehicle drives with the pump eng aged while vehicle -
mounted turrets and nozzles are able to apply water on
a fire. Type 3 engines are staffed with a minimum of
three qualified personnel. Currently, the City operates with two Type 3 engines that are 25 years old and have
proven to be unreliable in operation.
Type 6 Engines have a smaller configuration that is
mounted on a heavy -duty four -wheel-drive pickup
truck frame. Type 6 engines have maneuverability in
areas that may be difficult to access by Type 3
engines. Type 6 units carry 50 -350 gallons of water
with pumping capability. Type 6 engines can be used
for size up and initial attack operations. Type 6
engines can be equipped with medical and rescue
equipment. Type 6 engines are staffed with a
minimum of two qualified personnel. Currently, the
City does not operate a Type 6 engine.
Public Safety Plan
MEDIC SQUAD
Typical Medic Squad
WATER TENDER
Typical Water Tender
Medic squads are designed for response to medical
aid incidents. Medic squads do not have any fire
suppression capability beyond a fire extinguisher.
Medic squads are equipped with medical, rescue, and
fire suppression support equipment. Medic squads are
staffed with a minimum of two qualified personnel.
Currently, the City operates one medic squad and has
a second medic squad in reserve.
Water tenders are a specialized firefighting apparatus
designed for transporting water from a water source
to a fire scene. Water tenders are also capable of
drafting water from a stream, or lake. Water tenders
are used when there i s no water supply accessible by
other means. Water tenders utilize a small pump to
move wate r to fire engines. Water tenders can carry
between 1,000 – 3,000 gallons of water in single or
dual axle configurations. NFPA 1901 establishes
standards for water tender equipment. Currently, the
City does not own or operate a water tender.
Public Safety Plan
LADDER TRUCK/QUINT
Typical Type Ladder Truck Quint
AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING (ARFF)
Typical ARFF Apparatus
A Quint is an aerial apparatus that carries fire hose,
ground ladder, fire pump, a water tank, and a
mounted ladder device. NPFA Standard
1901establishes minimum standards including a
1,000 gpm fire pump, water tank of 300 gallons,
aerial ladder or elevating platform with a permanently
installed waterway, a complement of ground ladders
containing a minimum of 85 feet of ground ladders,
including at least: two extension ladders, one roof
ladder, and one attic ladder.
Currently, the City operates one quint (MT 311) and
has a ladder truck (T 314) in reserve status T314 is
strictly a ladder and does not have water or pumping
capability. This requires that a Type 1 engine be
assigned to T314 during any aerial suppression
operations. T314 is 19 years old.
An Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
apparatus is a very specialized apparatus for use at
airports. Sometimes referred to as “Crash Rigs,” these
apparatus are specifically designed to quickly
suppress fire in the event of an aircraft crash or
incident. ARFF units are configured with water
tanks, foam, and dry chemical agents. Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) establishes
requirements for airport index needs in ARFF
capability. Southern California Logistics Airport
(SCLA) currently has ARFF unit s that has exceeded
their lifespan and need to be replaced. An ARFF
apparatus carrying at least 3,000 gallons of water is
currently needed to meet apparatus needs.
Public Safety Plan
OES HAZMAT TYPE II
Typical OES HazMat Type II
First responders are capable of arriving on scene, evacuating, and basic decontamination of those who are contaminated. First responders have minimal capability for containing Hazardous Material incidents or rescuing victims. HMRT units augment first respo nder capabilities by responding in a fully equipped vehicle, identifying products, plugging leaks, and containing runoff.
A Type 2 Hazardous Materials Response Team
(HMRT) is an organized group of firefighters trained
as hazardous materials technicians that respond to
chemical, biological, radiological and other hazardous
materials incidents. They have the training needed to
detect, i dentify, and contain these incidents using
specialized tools and methods. The Haz Mat Unit is a
self contained response vehicle capable of bringing a
mobile lab and other equipment directly to the scene.
Public Safety Plan
EXHIBIT C
INSPECTION TIME ANALYSIS
Work days: 208
Annual Work Hours: 2080
Holiday hours: -108
Minimum Vacation hours: -80
Anticipated Sick days 7 days: -56
Total lunch hours: -104
Approx Training (10 days X 8 hrs): -80
Meetings and Planning: -104
_____________________________________________________________ Expected annual work hours: 1548 (92,880 minutes per year)
FINAL ANALYSIS OF OFFICER INSPECTIONS TIME FOR CASES
• Average of 6 (NOV inspections) per day
• 1548 hrs / 8 hour day = 194 total inspection days
• 194 total inspection days x 6 inspections per day= 1,164 case inspections per year • 1,164 / 2 (minimum number of inspection per case) = 582 max cases per officer • 582 cases x 7 officers = 4,074 (max cases that Code Compliance can currently handle with 7 officers)
• 2019 calendar year case total of 5,902.
• 1,828 cases (shortfall of only calendar year 2019 cases. Does not include prior year roll over cases)
NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS:
• Analysis below based on a 8 hour day (7.5 work hours with .5 hour paid lunch) • Additional time related to researching building permits, license or other City land use permits is not considered in the inspection time analysis below.
• Additional time related to police or fire request that would extend stated inspection times is not considered in the inspection time analysis below.
• Time related to voice mail, email correspondence or front counter meetings between officers and property owners/ complainants is not considered in the inspection time analysis below • Analysis below based on a first year employee
ADDITIONAL OFFICER TIME RELATED TO AN INSPECTION ACTIONS:
• Research parcel for property owner phone number if case is urgent (10 minutes each case) • Research permits or land use documents and confer with Engineering, Building or Planning Departments (if needed) (15 minutes each case)
• Return phone calls from complainants and or property owner (15 minutes average each case)
Public Safety Plan
• Reply to emails from complainants, property owners or property management related to the case (10 minutes average each case)
• Meet with complainants and or property owner at the counter (10 minutes each case) • Total average additional inspection time (excluded abatement action) (12 minutes each case) • Abatement scope creation, contractor bids, warrant writing, legal review and procurement ( 3 hours each case)
TIME ANALYSIS FOR EACH NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION
Event Average Time
(minutes) Note
Inspection preparation
15 Access system. Familiarize with basis for case and
establish priority. Verify property ownership. Verify
occupancy and license status (if rental). Verify prior
property history. Verify permits or other City
approvals (if relevant) and add to daily inspection
route.
Travel 15
Travel to inspection location from City Hall or last
inspection location to new inspection location
Inspection, resident
interaction and Energov
(app) field usage 20
Assess violation. Take photographs. Establish
contact and discuss violations. Issue written Notice
of Violation. Access app, upload pictures. Update
inspection notes.
Create case violations,
create mail notification,
verify other compliance
requirements, update case
work flow 15
Populate case violations in Energov, tailor required
corrective actions. Access County database to verify
current property owner mailing information, print
and prepare for mail service. Create next case
inspection.
TOTAL 65
+added inspection actions 12
Total NOV inspections per
day
7.5 hrs (450 min /
77 min= 5.8 NOV
inspections
Public Safety Plan
TIME ANALYSIS FOR EACH NOTICE OF PENDENCY (NOP) INSPECTION Event Average Time
(minutes) Note
Inspection preparation 10
Access system. Familiarize with basis for case and
establish priority. Verify current property ownership.
Verify occupancy and license status (if rental and if
application submitted for the unlicensed rental).
Verify permits or other City approvals (if relevant
and if obtained) add to daily inspection route.
Travel 10 Travel to inspection location from City Hall or last inspection location to new inspection location
Inspection, resident
interaction and Energov
(app) field usage
15 Assess resolution of violation. Take added
photographs. Attempt contact and discuss
outstanding violations. Access app, upload pictures.
Update inspection notes.
Create case violations,
create mail notification,
verify other compliance
requirements, update case
work flow
10 Populate violations, tailor required corrective actions.
Access County database to verify current property
owner mailing information, print and prepare letter
for mail.
Prepare Notice of
Pendency to record with
County Recorder
3 Print NOP via Energov
Update case work flow.
Schedule next inspection 2 Complete next step of work flow TOTAL 50
+added inspection actions 12
Total NOV inspections per
day
7.5 hrs (450 min /
62 min= 7.3 NOV
inspections
Public Safety Plan
TIME ANALYSIS FOR EACH CITATION INSPECTION
Event Average Time
(minutes) Note
Inspection preparation 10
Access system. Familiarize with basis for case and
establish priority. Verify current property ownership.
Verify occupancy and license status (if rental and if
application submitted for the unlicensed rental).
Verify permits or other City approvals (if relevant
and if obtained) Determine appropriate penalty (fine)
level. Consider best route.
Travel 10 Travel to inspection location from City Hall or last inspection location to new inspection location
Inspection, resident
interaction and Energov
(app) field usage
15 Assess status of violation. Take added photographs.
Attempt contact to issue citation. Prepare citation.
Issue citation. Access app, upload pictures. Update
inspection notes.
Update violation, Verify
PIMS ownership, mail
citation and mail
notification
10 Populate violations, update case with asses fines,
mail copy of citation to violator and citation servicing vendor (Citation Processing Center). If citation is to be mailed, complete service declaration and prepare
for mail service.
Update case work flow.
Schedule next inspection 3 Complete next step of work flow TOTAL 48
+added inspection actions 12
Total NOV inspections per
day
7.5 hrs (450 min /
60 min= 7.5 Cite
inspections
Item Number: 22
City Council / Board of Directors
Written Communications
Meeting of: January 20, 2026
Submitted By:
Jennifer Thompson, City Clerk
Subject:
Possible cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 17, 2026 Recommendation:
Any action is at the discretion of the City Council.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
Discussion:
On June 17, 2025, the City Council took action to approve the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Training – Travel Schedule for City Council Members. As part of that approval, Council Members were authorized to attend the National League of Cities – Congressional City Conference scheduled for March 16-18, 2026, in Washington D.C. Due to attendance at said conference, there will not be quorum for the City Council meeting of March 17, 2026.
Pursuant to Chapter 3, Section III, B of the City Council Policy and Procedure Manual, any regular or special meeting of the Council may be cancelled in advance by a majority vote; therefore, staff recommends cancellation of the March 17, 2026, meeting.
Prepared By:
Jennifer Thompson, City Clerk
Attachments: None
Item Number: 23
City Council / Board of Directors
Written Communications
Meeting of: January 20, 2026
Submitted By:
Jennifer Thompson, City Clerk
Subject:
Discussion and Possible Action for Consideration of Establishing a City-Sponsored 5K Race Event
Recommendation:
Any action is at the discretion of Your Honorable City Council.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
Background:
At the City Council meeting of December 2, 2025, it was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Harriman with unanimous approval, to agendize an item for discussion and possible action to discuss a City-sponsored 5K race event.
Discussion:
This item is presented to the Council to facilitate further discussion regarding the potential establishment of a City-sponsored 5K race event.
Staff remains available for any questions you might have.
Prepared By:
Denise A. Salazar, Deputy City Clerk
Attachments: None