1974/05/027L-~9
The City Comicil of the City of Anahet~n mC t~ AdJmlraed Le~uLar
Session called for ~he purpose of a combined City Cmmcil-~rt-
sent Head Budoet leviev (Session Ho. 3 ).
lityor Ttmm called the meetin~ to order at 9:~0 A.M.
The City ~r advised that in accordm~ce vl~h Coeoctl's dtrec-
tio~ ac ~et ;~ss/~ ~. 2 (held ~il 24, 1971)
,$1,~,~ ~ ~ l, Civic C~Cer ~mt~c~l~ ~ ~ 197~'7~ ~,
t~ as to ~tb~ks ~d/or deleti~s fr~ t~
or4er to ~l~e t~e rev~e~enditure sttumtt~.
al~i;~ of ~ls s~ to the constructi~ of ~mme
b i~kit~ his r~rk8 ~ld be limited ~ ~he
~s. In ~dtti.~, ~. ~rdoch r~rted t~t ~ cu~C rev~ picture for
the r~ilr of the curr~t fiscal y~r ~uld ~it ~ ~t~ of ~e
220 ~ S~8tati~ fr~ the 197~74 aviilable ~ads
ted fr~ 197~74 u~r~riated rese~es).
grmnyr_ ~der nenr~T_ T~me m ,eA~fum!_n SQ THE 197~-75 _mnes~ nermerr~: The City
Nmm~er utilized transparencies to summrize the stsnlficmt reduce=
~h~ch are recounemied frou 1974-75 tmd~et requests as follows:
220 KY Substation (from '73-74 fuads)
Electrical Utility
($&00,O00 from Generation Participation Studies) (Totel)
Bro&dv~y Storm Dra~.u (1973-74 Reven~e Shart~)
Id l~alma Baseball Field (1972-73 geveaue Sb~tu~)
Perk Coastructi~n & Acquisition (Bond Issue)
Fire Station Ho. 9
Pmrmmedica
l~blic Morks Yard
Others Uuder Consideration
$ 1,600,000
l,O00,O00
tZO,O00
t,llO,O00
181, SO0
tlS,000
tbrdoch eJ~Lainmd cite ra.tionale of the proposed
from ~he 197~-75 Bad,et ~ndicatinS that the Id him Baseball
well as t~ Park ~t~cti~ ~d ~quisiCi~
it ~ c~i~rg ~t ~ allocati~ for ~rk ~t~t~ ~
~t ~ld ~
it~ ~ld ~ ~clud~
lie indicated that althouih the landfill site hms bemm deLmcmd
from this budset, mCClUirins such a site vould be viChiJt Cite Ct,iT*mb est
imt:erestm, mad would produce monetar7 saviass because of the dB0rtenod
dltt~oce to h&ul solid waits materials.
The public works yard, Which has been lrrot2osed as sa espmStou of
~ ceatral 7erd fmmction, ws deleted priuarily becanse .the. Loeat .l~. currently
coestdered is adjacent to residential uses and has receutly beem So!Id to a
private developer. Ifs alternative site has been oelect~eg and l:here~e ~his
item can be postponed.
74-450
Hail,' a--heim.' California - CiFONCIL MINUTES - MaY 2. 1974. 9:30 A.M.
In connection with the reductiOn of $440~000 for stOrm drains, Mr.
Murdoch explained that this sum was for construction Of threestorm drains
located at Gaymont, La Palms and Broadway. It is anticipated that the City can
still proceed With construction of one of these drains (the Broadway storm drain)
together with the City of Garden Grove with $50,000 from gas.'tax funds from the
1973-74 budget. 7
Mr. Murdoch advised that the $740,000 listed as "others under considera-
tion'' reflects the total amount which could be expected from small cuts made
throughout the budget, these ranging from as Iow as $100 up to $25,000 to $30,000.
These are presently under consideration between Management and the Department
Heads who would be affected. He advised that 'he did not feel the entire $740,000
would be cut, that a portion of this amount would be deleted from the final budget
proposal.
Mr. Murdoch sunmmrized that the 1974-75 Budget will balance if the
above noted deletions or cutbacks are implemented together with the recommended
rate increases as discussed'at the last Budget Session, namely:
Maintenance of current rate structure relationship with
Southern California Edison rates (revised since 4-24-74
to provide for rates which will return $3,000,000 in
revenue rather than $3,500,000 to the General Fund).
2. Adjustment of water rates upwards (revised since'4-24-74
to increase water rates to provide additional revenues in
the amount of $750,000 rather than $1,000,000 as previously
recommended.)
3. Increase in sanitation charges to $2.00 per month - an
increase of 15% (additional $300,000 per year)
In addition, a Park Bond Issue for the Novemberballot is recommended,
recognizing that the failure of such issue would result in a slow down bf park
development since the $1,110,000 allocation for park construction and acquisi-
tion is recommended as one of the substantial reductions to bring the budget
into balance. He added that if the State Bond Issue is approved by the voters
in June, then funds would be available for Juarez Park development.
Mr. Fmrdoch related that some type of revenue bond proposal is also
suggested for the Civic Center construction and referred to Council's desire
for placement of such an issue before the voters in November. If this is
approved, he noted that $1,680,500 would be released from the 1974-75 Budget
for some of the City's other priorities.
FROJEGTS F(~ADDITI0~IAL CONSIDERATION: A second transparency was used to illustrate
the list of items selected as "Projects for Additional Consideration" i.e, those
items which the Council may wish to give priority to should additional funds be-
come available. These were indicated as follows:
Fire station No. 9.PlUs Manning
Supplemental Police Activity
P&ramedics, One. or Two Units
($46,000 in Federal Funds Available for Equipment) 1st Unit
2nd Unit
Landfill Site, at least down payment
Increase Alley Program ) 3 months only
Increase Street Maintenance Program )
Advance Plannin~, En$in~ering
GrantSmau.
Park C°nsiruCtion ('If Proposed Park Bonds do not Carry)
Branch Library No. 2 - Euclid Site
175,500
100,000
101,000
80,000
115,000
255,000
32,000
25,000
200,000
370,000
(Includes construction, furnishing & book stock, but not personnel)
- 1) 340,000
Storm.Drains - 2) 100,000
- 3) 540,000
Or Many Pieces of Equipment which would reduce labor requirements ?
Bicycle Trail Construction on Matching Basis ?
City Hall. ~---h-dm-_ .California - _c~_.~CIL ~r~w~ - .-.--- 2..197&. 9:30_ _I~_N
offered i~e folLowl~ c~meats reprdin~ ~ pro~ecf, s P~ i~ the list
adyence Plmmifq, En~ineer~n~ - ~t~ in ~b p~C, Ii ~b Cl~y
~ ~ c~le~t~ o-[ said proJ~ts. In s~al, If ~b ~ ~e ~
Mll~le bra project, t~ desi~ ~ p~s ~ m ~e ~ ~le~.
p~~, if t~ ~ssibili~y si a~ittonal F~eral ~g ~ ~, priority
~oJ~8 ~ld be re~ ~o proceed ~d this ~ld be ~ ~e Ct~*J ~~ge.
Creatmmn- If ~e City is ~otns to auressi~ely pursue Federal
Crania, it vo~ld be necessary to hire an individ~al with Ldmt distinct
rerponsibility and vith experience and qualifications in this area.
Equipment h~htch Could Reduce Labor aequiremen~s - Uithin the
$7~0,000 ~ above as a possible deduction are included uday pieces
equipment ~hich ere laborsaving, or are replacements f~or equf4mm~ for
Match the cost of ueintenance indicates r~at trade-in or replmeemat is
~tsable. Some of these irene should be considered in en~ pLMmin~ of the
budget on availability of additional funds.
Bicycle laths - Currently limited to ~he $33,900 in f~nds requested
~rouSCAC for plenniu~. This item was included because o~Councll~ stated
interest.
Storm Drains = In answer to Councilwoman KayMood's question re-
~rdin~ ~he inflation factor Which mish~ be anticipated by po~ta~cou-
s~ruction of storm drains for one year, Mr. Bill Devitt, Assisten~Clty
Engineer, reported that historically the inflation factor hie b~en -5% per
year, however, the past year would indicate that this will probably increase
to 10%.
Re~ardin~ the unincorporated area near ~he prOpo~ed Brosd~ty storm
drain, Mr. Devitt advised that the County is conteuplattu~at ~his tf~ne a
street widening project but that ~t vould be located on the sou~h side si the
street, Whereas the Broadway storm drain vo~ld be located on tim aorth.
DZi3ltiMIf- CITY FLS~-IT. ~i~ pn&~TiCK~:
1. Estimat..ed yield on i~ereJ~-b.ea~.Ftn~
~i~ ~'s ~sti~ re~ardi~ the
r~ ~ore~s~ estim~e versus 2he actual r~e~e,
t~ ~in E~tor ~s that he did not ~ttcipa~ the h~ yie~ ~ich
r~eiv~ ~ tnveet~ ~s ~ich has be~ a~roxi~tely
pr~[~81y ~er~ 5~ to 6%. In addition to this, ~. R~r ~~ that
F~al revere ~ari~ ~nds, al~ alr~y allocate, ~ve MC be~
~lly e~e~ ~ are, ~herefore, accrui~
Rt~ ~vts~ ~ht he ~eel8 the priMry intere8~ ra~e will ~ ~rins ~he
fiscal y~r ~ c~rva~ively
2. Disbursemen~ o~ Accounts Payable: Brief discussion m held
relative to the timtu~ of payment of the City*s accounts IMYable, specifi-
cally aa to Whether or not full application of the principle of de[errin~
pdymeaC until date due is utilized so as to retain use of or collec~ interest
~u t~e Ctt~y's f~nds for ~he ~aximum period Possible.
Mr. Riu~er ad~tsed that .this method is employed ebere~er possible
sa major it~ad, however, 80 to 90% of the City's bills ~re for oudller tteus
f~d these invoices are paid as soon ss possible. Mr. RtltS~ ralaZsd wt~h
present procedure used, it takes the City ~vo to ~hree Mseb ~o proeess pfryment
of mi invoice. In addition, he explained the cash flo~ f~hut~ ~hich re-
suits in the City beiu~ 105 ~o 110% invested for a majority of ~e time.
74-452
~lt¥ H~ll, -in--~beim.'california - COU~IL MIIR~'KS - liar 2. 1974. 9:30 A.M.
3. Co$:t Allocation for Various City Devartmental Services:' In answer
to Councilman Thom's question regarding the Data Processing approved appropria-
tions for 1973-74 of $123,290, Mr. Ringer advised that this figure does not
reflect the total cost of the Data Processing Department, but rather that portion
of the cost which is not charged to other departments. He explained that the.
various City Departments, and in particular the utilities acCounts, have a line
item. shown in their annual budget indicating cost of data processing services
provided that department during the fiscal year. In this manner the cost of
Data Processing services is distributed between the using departments, and these
charges to the individual departmemts are computed on base estimates of the ac-
tual volume of work load performed-by Data Processing for the department. This
chargeback technique is also used to reflect costs in areas such as motor vehicles
and property maintenance, but is not broken down to include all interfacing'City
services such as personnel, legal and administrative functions.
Councilman Seymour voiced concern as to how much control each indivi-
dual department head has over his annual budget in this chargeback situation
and stated that if the department head is to be held responsible for minimizing
the. costs of his department while providing efficient operation, certainly he
should,have the authority to control the amount of burden of these services which
his budget will carry.
Mr. Murdoch explained that there is a User Committee, comprised of
department heads, and chaired by the AsSistant City Manager Robert Davis, to
review new data processing programs as to their application.' Further, he indi-
cated that each department head does have the right and ability to challenge
the amount of his chargeback at any time. He noted, however, that prior to
dropping any particular program it would have to be ascertained whether the
information is being used by another department as is very often the case, the
information collected for one department is applied and used in other areas.
DOC~ATION SUBNITTED TO COt~CIL THIS DATE:
1. Memorandum dated May. 2, 1974 from the Utilities Director - Subject:
Evaluati.ono{ co~nity benefits resulting from various electric utility operating
methods, together with Exhibits A through F inclusive.
2. Report dated May 2, 1974 from Police Chief David B. Michel - Subject:
Anaheim Police Department helicopter Program.
(Said reports both on file in the office of the City Clerk).
ANALYSIS AND.EVALUAT101~ OF THE COI~TI~ITY BENEFITS RESULTING FROM -
A. LIQUIDATION OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITIES:
B. OPERATION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF POWER ONLY:
C. VERSUS OPERATION FOR GENERATION FOR TRANSMISSION
DISTRIBUTION OF POWER:
SllliitlY OF ANALYSIS: To prepare the analysis in accordance with Mayor Thom's
request at the Budget Session of April 24, 1974, Mr. Hoyt advised that he used
the period spanning fiscal year 1974-75 through 1989-90. In sunmmry, this
analysis reveals the greatest community benefit will come through participation
in generation, transmission and distribution of power, and the least benefit
from liquidation.
-. The average annual contribution to the general fund of the City from
1974-75 through 1989-90 is estimated to be $1,642,000 if, the utility if liqui-
dated at its depreciated book value; $4,406,000 if the utility distributes
power only; and $20,825,000 if the utility generates, transmits and distributes
power to the con~nunity.
The value of the utility, if liquidated, will remain at its liquidated
value assuming the principal is kept intact and invested. The value of the
utility will increase from $29,900,000 to $91,200,000 if it distributes only;
and from $29,900,000 to $199,800,000 if it participates in generation, trans-
mission and distribution.
~. H~C ~d C~c the ~lysis is based ~ ~974 ~eC8 ~
~leaale nd re, ail e~tr~c rates in ef~ec~ in m~197~. ~. ~
~~ ~ised that ~ the preparation of the ulys[f ,~e pr~ds from
li.~dida~ed facilf~ies ~re no~ applied to re~[re~ of ~e ~s~:n8 deb2
bu~ ra~er ~he prfnc[~l ~s kep~ intac~ and invested a~ ~ ~res~ rate
of 7~% fr~ ~he cu~t y~r thr~ 198~90.
_umru~MfmnaTIflu: Based on the results of this study and on hfs year~ of
e2eperience in the industry, Nr. Hoyt stated that his recommudStion ~ould be
to continue to operate the electric utility as in the past end ~.trther to
cont/nue to explore power generation and transmission projects to determine
their feasibility and economic benefit to the people of Anaheim. If feasible
projects are reached, he would expect to return with a recouneudat~,ou for
participation in same.
Foist to a brief review of the various documemtatlon~ m~bm/tted in
support of the analysis, Councilman Seymour raised the iquest~ relative to
the figures indicated on page 1 of the
cure Co~arison.
Councilman Se~r remarked that this page ~ as ~nter/m~
transfer of $3,000,000 frmn the electric utility to the ~enera! ~und, and
also pointed out that the next columns reflecting reveauewht.ch ~/ll be
available to operate the utility fall short of the depar~tal lmdget
request by '$1,800,000. Therefore, you would have to subtract
$1,~0,000 from.the overall total which would mean that the elec~ical
utility ~vuld not be .able to forward $3,000,000 to the ~eneral
~r. ~rdoch emphasized that the budget proposals referred'to by
Councilmma Seymour are merely ~orkin$ documents which give the ~mls which
the City wishes to attain in preparation and balancing of the tmd~et. He
fltdicated that $1,000,000 from the electrical utility is ~h~n above in
"significant reductions reconuended from budget requests" mad ms pre~ented
in order to alleviate this situation.
Nr. Hoyt indicated that during last year's prelim/~ary tm~Ket
review the electric utilities budget ~a8 in ~Vrox/~ately the m s~aee ~d
aa~red C~cil that by the t~ the ~d~et ~s ~y ~ ~il ~al,
[~ a~ ~enses for the electric utili~will ~ bal~~ ~ere will
otill be ~ ~diti~al $3,0~,000 ~or tree,er to the
~~ r~rted Cbt a n~~th fi~cial static h~~
t~ ~alyeio preoe~ed this date and gives a pic~re of t~ el~trtc utility
aa of~rch 31,
Mc. Royt then conducted a revie~ of the co~onmat ~arts (~hibits
&thrma~h F) of the ~nalysis, conqmring the benefits of various
methods of the electric utility, as submitted to Council together with
memorandum dated t gay 2, 1974. (Said memorandum and Exhibits
the office of the City Clerk).
.~F.L~L~: Financial Forecasts from Fiscal Year 197/+-75 ~rL~ouSb 1989-90.
Figures ~ere compiled using a cmmon denominator of curren~ .deprecl~ed book
value o~ the electric utility at $29,900,000, on the t~s~8 that th~o Ks not
an unreammable figure. Also, fin~ncial forecasts eere completed.using a
value of ~0,000,000 for the utility for comparimm l~rpe~es. The com~ara-
tire statistics which ~ere the result of these analy~e~ areas ~oll~:
Li~uidate
Value 1973- 7/+
PLant Value 1989-90
Total Value 1989-90
(~ludea Value ~
md Fiscal
Total Cen~ribution to
~ ltund~999. 90197~- 75
29,900,000 40,000,000
20,860,000 30,960,000
20,860,000 30,960,000
26,272,000 38,832,000
Avereje Ammml Coatr~bution
to General Fund 197~-75
Chroufb 1989-90 1,6~2,000
29,900,000 29,900,000
8~, 900, GO0 1&5,300, 000
91,200,~ 199,800,000
70,500,1300 333,200,000
2,&27,000 /+,~,0~0 20,825,000
74-454
City Hall, A~aheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2. 1974. 9:30 A.M.
Exhibits A-2 and A-3 were curved graphs showing the estimated annual
depreciated plant value as of June,30 of each subsequent year during this period
and estimated annual constributions to the general fund respectively.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Hoyt advised that study costs
for entrance into generation are included as project costs and are capitalized.
Mr. Hurdoch emphasized that all costs from entrance into the study
through transmission as well as the interest on bonds are included in these
figures.
~: Mr. Hoyt advised that this section attempts to establish some para-
meters for valuation on liquidation. This points out that'about 25% of the sys-
tem was purchased for $8,000,000 and, therefore, presumably the whole system
would have a value of $32,000,000. There are outstanding against, that $32,000,000
$7,650,000 in revenue bonds which .have an a~qo~ute claim on proceeds' from any sale
of the electric utility. In addition, there are $1,389,~00 in general obliga-
tion bonds outstanding from an earlier issue and in the event of sale, money
should be set aside to '.retire these as well. There is currently (as of June 30,
1974) in the fiscal agent reserve, $300,000 to help retire the revenue bond debt.
Page tP2 is a comparison of net proceeds from liquidation of the
utility ~hich would be available for investment and what the City could expect
to receive annually from that investment at an interest rate of 7.5%. The total
annual revenue thus projected is $1,642,000 assuming the gross liquidated value
is $29,900,000; the total revenue would be $2,427,000 assuming the gross liqui-
dated value is $40,000,000; and the annual revenue would be $3,203,000 if the
gross liquidated revenue were $50,000,000.
~~_~: Section C deals with the facts and figures of continuing to operate
the electric utility without generation. Appropriate schedules are sho~n for
each fiscal year from 1973-74 through 1989-90. These statistics take into
account the operating and other revenues received by the utility; the cost to
purchase power from Edison, operating expenses, etc. Following deduction of
all of the above, plus necessary capital outlays for debt service and reserve
and replacement account, figures are shown for the estimated amount which would
be transferred to the general fund.
-Mr. Hoyt advised that the line which refers to "Other City Department
Charges"'includes the costs of personnel.and administrative functions and are
estimates based on their total expenses, which have been established as reasonable
over the years. The cost of data processing and mechanical maintenance are shown
as other operating costs.
~: Section D deals with the same area as Section C except these statis-
tics are based on the assumption that the Intermountain Power Project is a source
of purchased power for the City
~: Section E is comprised of a series of ~raphs which chart the elec-
trical load and resources planned for the City of Anaheim through 1989-90, i.e.,
the demand and a projection as to how the increasing requirements canbe satis-
fied through the anticipated power generating projects in which the City may
participate, in addition to purchase from Edison, and the comparative costs
thereof, computed on a per kilowatt hour basis. A graph is also presented
showin~ the projected'cumulative savings resulting from extensive generation
participation.
m~l~/-~: Section F includes management information such as monthly statements
of revenue, and expenses which includes a nine-month su~nary for the period ending
March 31, 1974.
~: In answer to Councilman Seymour's expressed concern as to whether
or not this analysis shows an adequate amount of depreciation allowance and the
consequences thereof, Mr. Hoyt pointed out that the comparative analyses pre-
sented this date are primarily concerned with cash-flow figures and that depre-
ciation in the electric utility is a charge which is made against expenses to
reduce th~ net income. Depreciation has been excluded from these analyses
since it does not have ~.place in this type of work sheet. He explained that
if depreciation was deducted from operating eXPenses on the work sheet, it
would have to be put backagain under net operating revenue.
City ~illl. Anaheim. California- COUNCIL HIHUTES- Nay 2. 197&-.9:3~ A.M-
Hr. ltoyt advised that nee or replacement equipment for the electric
utility is budgeted out of revenues. He added that in the utilities industry
the practice is to replace a facility by bonding for the life e'f the nee facility,
and 'after the 35 years, or ~tever the bondi~g term ia,: d.~e$~tton is no longer
deducted apinst income. He advised that the Anaheim Electric Utility is charg-
ing depreciation amounts recounended by the Federal Paver Connission and is
using the same depreciation method a8 other utilities.
Hr. Hoyt concluded his presentation expressin$ the opinion that this
analysis does demonstrate the value of the electric utility to the
Councilwoman Kay~ood questioned ~hether the Southern California Edison
Company budgets ~unds for undersroundins and research, to~hichltr.. Hoyt responded
that they allocate 2% of their revenues for undersToundtn$. He rel-sted that the
Anaheim Electric Utility does not budget any funds for conversion to underground-
ins primarily Since the utility has not found' anyone vrillins to pay :their propsr-
tionate share o~ the cost of conversion, and the only suchproJect Which has been
accomplished is the Harbor Boulevard project. Hr. Hoyt added that all new
electrical 'installations made by the City are undersTound ~nd advised that the
City of Anaheim's first under,round backbone feeder system has been installed
alonsNohl Ranch Road.
In further response to Councilwoman Kay~ood, Mr. Hoyt advised that
tree trinning and removal is usually performed by the Parkway~enance Divi-
sion but is charged back at a cost against the electrical utility.
The ltayor thanked the Utilities Director for compiling the information
and analyses and called for any further Council questions.
Councilman Sneegas stated that he wished to clarify his statement from
the previous budget session April 2~, 1974, which was misquoted in the press. He
stated that his remark ~as that ~rom an investment standpoint., there is not a
businessman any~ere in Anaheim~ho would argue with the City being in the utility
business. He reiterated that the utility system provides ~reat advantase for the
citizens, and the future-prospects'appear-'to be even Kreater.
There being no further discussion or questions relative to the electrical
utility, Mayor Thom requested that the remaining time left for this Budget Session
be devoted to discussion of the Anaheim Police Department Helicopter Program.
,.-1~o~;~ ~.~m,~n PROteiN: Chief David A. Ktchel submitted a memorandumprepared by
Lt. Cook of the Special Enforcement Bureau outlining coats ofthe Helicopter
Proawmn together with a 8uemary o~ the various uses modess the helicopter
service vhich is intended to give Council a better understandin$ of hms the
proaTam coordinates with ground units.
The total coot indicated for the Helicopter Proa~mn Budget 197~-75
is $2~1,304, o~ which $129,75~ accounts for salaries and frin~e'beneftts for
the pilots end observers, and $111,550 for operational costs. (The final
payment on purchase of the helicopters will be made in June of l~&). Chief
liiChel eotimted that the future helicopter prosram costs cou~ld be reduced to
$221i68~ baaed on today's coots after amortization of the helicopters. He
referred to the specific request made by Council that the Helicopter ProKrmn
be evaluated in comparison with surface units which might be added for the
equivalent sum required to continue the helicopter service. Re first empha-
sized that the helicopterproKrsnvas never intended to replace the Kround
units, but rather to aualnent and supplement ground oper~tioas:. He outlined
that the City is divided into police responsibility areas end each area
quires one ~round unit and five officers for 2~-hour coveraje ~t a cost of
$127,250 per annum. On this basis, the funds allocated to the helicopter
proa~m would provide one and two-thirds area service.
ChiefNichel cited statistics compiled by Jet 'Propulato~ Idboratorie8
in a study performed for the Los Angeles Police Department rejardtns the effec-
tiveness of the use of helicopters in conjunction with ~heir Surface units,
which indicated an increase in number of arrests when helicopters Were utilized.
74-456
City Hall. 'Anaheim. California - C0iINCIL MINIITES - Nay 2. 1974. 9:30 A. lt.
He also pointed out that a helicopter can effectively observe 8 times the
area of au officer on the sround. Althoush he noted that it is not possible
to prove that the helicopter program does reduce crime, he indicated there
has been a marked decrease in the number of armed robberies, comaerctal
burglaries and incidents of vandalism and malicious mischief at schools, etc.,
some of which statistics have remained constant and some have not.
Chief Hichel reiterated that although no one knows precisely what
causes and what can deter crime, in his experience the helicopter adds a
dimension to police work which is difficult to measure in terms of statistics.
It is excellent backup support for the surface unit. He referred to the many
illustrations of effective use of the helicopter services included in his
report, as veil as letters of appreciation and support from citizens and
neighboringpolice departments.
Mayor Thom thanked Chief Iiichel for the additional information
and there vas no further discussion or questions from the Council.
~: Councilman Sneesas moved to adjourn. Councilvoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
Adjourned: 11:55 A.M.
City Clerk