Human Resources & Information Technology Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call today's meeting of the Human Resources and Information Technology Committee to order. It is 06:44. Apologies for our late arrival. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Roll call of membership let the record show that all members are present, although one of them is joining us remotely. Elder Jones is remote. We're moving on then to approval of the minutes from our previous meeting which was way back in October, October 22. Item number 20 five-fourteen 93, do I have a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Are there any corrections, changes, additions? There being none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

We all vote aye, so that passes five to zero. We do not have any public hearings or appearances, so we'll move right to our action item. That is item 20 five-fourteen 94, request for the approval of an APD reorganization. Do I have a motion?

Move to approve.

We have a motion. Second. And a second. Who would like to speak on this? Chief Olson will begin.

All right. Thank you, Chair. So as you're aware, the police department is requesting an additional patrol officer to be added to their table of organization for next year. As you're also aware, the staffing analysis that was conducted by Matrix last spring also recommended the addition of one patrol officer to our TO. This request was not included in the 2026 budget.

However, after the budget process, I started to take a look at potential avenues for funding this additional position. And it was through that process that I found out that we could absorb the cost of a police officer position next year just due to the vacant salary dollars that end up with having two officers deployed for long periods of time. They both have extensive military deployments or lengthy deployments for next year. One's already gone on deployment until August. The other one will be leaving in March and then will be deployed till October.

And then quite frankly, we just got news that another officer will be deployed in December for another, I think, six to eight month deployment for a good chunk of 2027. So, anyway, that being said, we did the math on it and determined that we would have enough funds that that could support adding a police officer to our TO for 2026. Essentially, this additional officer would balance our staffing to 28 patrol officers on each day off group. This will make it easier for our schedulers when they are making staffing decisions to have an even number on both of our two day off groups. Right now, we have one additional night officer that we don't have on the other group.

It just creates some inequities there. And certainly, again, having that additional body makes sense that we can provide a better level of service. I also recognize that I'm asking this to position to be funded beyond 2026. This is not a one year funding. As I pointed out, I mean, due to the high number of officers that we have that are also employed by the military, I think it's probably likely.

I can't say for certain, but there's a chance that as we continue on into 2027 and beyond that we could also see these deployments continue, which would continue to allow for some vacant salary dollars. There is also additional, we estimate, about $25,000 that we're gonna be saving next year and beyond in overtime due to a restructuring of our k nine officers' schedule, which was also kind of an inadvertent outcome of the staffing study as well as they looked at, again, not just should we add bodies or officers, but how are we delivering our services and how are we scheduling our officers. So that change is happening in January. So I think that those savings could also be applied to the cost involved in this. And with that, I can take any questions that you might have.

Thank you. Director Ashman, do you have anything to add?

District four? So Chief Olson and I had quite a conversation about this prior to a memo being submitted or coming to committee. And I did have a lot of questions about the timing of it and how would we pay for it, etcetera. I think she did a great job of quickly answering those questions and why we would do it now versus waiting for another budget cycle. I think, one, the request is supported by data, which is that staffing study.

I think this committee knows we, as an organization, put a lot into that. Two, when you look at whether or not this is a necessary request, if it's not approved tonight or at council, you'll see it in a future budget, which means the department is committed to moving forward with this position. And I think what has really changed since the budget has been submitted is an opportunity to use some unpaid vacant salary dollars to pay for this. So there would be funding to do it now versus waiting for another budget cycle. The other thing is I just want to stress what the chief talked about, the savings on the overtime, the 25,000.

The staffing study was never intended to be about how many positions can we add. It was about how are we staffed and what's the most efficient way to do it. And I got to wonder if we'd even be talking about that savings if this request wasn't brought forward or knowing the chiefs, you would just implement because it's the right thing to do. So don't want to lose sight that not everything's an ask for money. Some things are just being done because it makes sense. So I'm 100% in support of moving forward.

Thank you. Does anyone oh, Alder Hayden, saw you first.

Thank you, Chair. May I direct your question to Chief Olson?

You may.

Chief Olson, I like that you're following the study. That's something I really support. And one question is, there's some variability as we kind of get beyond, 2026. And I I think you kind of started addressing it when you talked about someone who was going to be deployed in January, 2027 or December 2026 going into 2027. But once we get beyond that, then these dollars that we're getting savings from people being deployed kind of are up in the air.

What is your level of confidence that we're going to consistently see that matching it? Or are we looking at a potential when we hit 2028 of having to find money else in the budget to kind of keep this person on staff as we hire them? And then they're a full time person. We can't just dismiss them because we don't have the money, I'm assuming, since it is a union contract.

Yeah. I think that's a great question. I think the best way for me to answer that is just to point out that, obviously, the budget, as we go year to year, we just we never know what the budget situation is going to look like for our city. And I think every year we face those decisions as far as our staffing. And we know, at least at the director level, those are questions that were asked to take a look at our budgets and to make sure that we are bringing forth the most sound budget, I guess, for the city and taking a look at the resources we have and the money we have available.

And so none of us know what money we're going to have available in two years. I also just wanna point out that the staffing study like, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the recommendations that were made by the staffing study, that it also included, I believe, an additional three traffic officers as well as a number of different investigative officers. So when you look at long range planning, I would expect that our ask is gonna be to continually have to add to our public service. And this is just the first step in that. So it doesn't really answer your question as far as where's the money going to come from in 2028.

I don't know. But I think that, like I pointed out, every year, you know, we evaluate our resources and our needs and those are decisions that the council is going to have to make in future years.

Thank you. Alder Woolf? Word for word,

that was my exact question. I'm even joking. With that, I do not have any further questions beyond that. I understand where you're coming from. This is a bit worrisome for me, not having that long term answer, but, of course, we have many departments with similar, questionable, budgetary restrictions. So, you know, but I understand that we do need to invest in our police department and public safety. So, yeah, thank you.

Alder Stanton Martin? Alder Jones? Alder Croft? Anything? I'd like to start by saying I thank all of the officers who support this city, who protect this city.

And I especially thank those who give their time for military service. So I'm very appreciative of everyone who serves. I'm also really grateful that we, as a city, can absorb this based on the fact that all of these moving parts are moving around and that we're able to manage that. And I thank you, Chief Olson, for just making that determination, just figuring out how we're going to get to that point. As Director Raschmann said, I think this is supported not only by the staffing study, the data that was provided by the staffing study, but also by these military deployments.

We still need to keep up with who we're missing if we're missing someone. So I'm supportive of this, but I have the same concerns that everyone has. This is not a long term solution. This is a short ish term solution. But I also expect that the growth of the city will lead to us needing to support the growth of APD as well. Incrementally, of course. I don't want us to jump too far ahead of ourselves. So I'm generally supportive and grateful that we got to this point, but I feel the same as these other elders who have expressed their concerns in that regard. You all know that as well. Does anyone else have any other comments or questions?

There being none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. That passes five-zero. We have one informational item oh, thank you, Chief Olson. We have one informational item, 20Five-fourteen95, the recruitment status report for 12/04/2025. Director Ashman, anything to queue us up on on this one?

No, but more than happy to answer questions.

All right. Anyone have any questions or concerns? All right. There seem to be none, so you're off the hook, Director Achman. We'll move on to item number eight.

Motion to adjourn. Second.

We have a motion and multiple seconds. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thanks, everybody. Thank you, friends.