CORRESPONDENCE - 60B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The proposal calls for 7 patrol agents each day. That is 392 hours per week of coverage (7 agents, 7 days per week, 8 hours per day) with 336 hours of non -supervisor positions which presumably would be boots in the park on patrol. This should be more than sufficient to be able to provide services to more than just the identified parks. When it comes at a cost of $6671< annually, it is important to be sure we are getting what we are paying for, what we are need, and what will help. This is a lot of money for a city that is teetering on the brink. We need to make sure that this is what we need and desire. If the cost of this program can be curtailed while still providing needed services, we should do what we need to in order to control costs. If this means that the services go out to the Rf-P process, then that should be done. I would encourage the city to work with the existing framework as presented but allow city staff to make changes requiring flexibility of the patrol services across not only the identified parks but others also, include nighttime patrols, require additional accountability through publishing of statistics to this program so that we can determine if it is successful. I would also encourage the city to have the flexibility to cease this security initiative in the instance that a sustainable parks ranger program can be established before the contract expires. If additional time is needed to get this program in better shape, then we should press pause and come up with the great program that our residents need and deserve. Thank you for your consideration and please do what is best for our city, its residents, businesses, children, and voters. z