A Revenue-Based Model for
Public Safety in Saginaw
January 20, 20131
Introduction
OR MORE THAN  THIRTY YEARS, Saginaw’s public safety efforts have been in a state of strategic
retreat. In response to declining state shared revenues, declining tax base, increased costs and a
restrictive tax cap, the city has continued to reduce staffing in its police, fire and building inspection and
code enforcement areas – just as it has elsewhere.
Each round of cuts has been – in the battle against crime, against blight, against fire – an act of
retreat. Each time, we’ve given up ground. The number of blighted buildings has skyrocketed. Fire
response has been compromised. And even while we’ve reduced violent crimes, property and “quality of
life” crimes have risen.
Each time we’ve retreated, we’ve lost residents. Each time we’ve retreated, we’ve lost
businesses. Each time we’ve retreated, we’ve lost our ability to generate revenue. And each time we’ve
retreated, we’ve lost that much more of our attractiveness … of the strength that makes people believe
ours is a vital, safe and prosperous city.
Most of the models examined recently for reorganizing public safety recommend, in one way or
another, yet another retreat. Whether it is combining police and fire into PSOs, outsourcing law
enforcement to the Sheriff, or simply cutting positions, we will cede more of our city to crime, abuse
and destruction. As we do, we will spin more rapidly in a vicious circle of decline.
This proposes a model for public safety that does two things:
 restructures many areas of responsibility to maximize available manpower and customer
service
 establishes special regular deployments that generate considerable revenue – while attacking
the “quality of life” crime and other ordinance violations that help create, to many of our
residents, a sense of lawlessness
F2
Concept
Over the last three decades, many factors have driven a gradual economic and emotional disinvestment
in Saginaw. High among them, though, are metastasizing blight, crime  and a persistent perception that
crime is always increasing.
Of these, the most difficult to combat is the last. Even in years when violent crime has seen
significant reductions, there is the perception of increased crime. We know part of this is because  of
contemporary news reporting: the newspaper has all but died, and each incident is reported immediately
in online media — usually spreading rapidly through social media as well.
But part of the perceptual problem is the result of the city’s inability to combat the far more
commonplace “minor” crimes that residents and workers are more likely to see on a daily basis.
Speeding, running red lights, loud car sound systems, littering, loitering, curfew violations, vandalism:
these are the “broken windows” that make people who live in, work in or visit our city believe it is a
place where laws are not — or cannot — be enforced.
If we follow the “broken windows” theory advanced initially by author Jane Jacobs; refined,
tested and  named by James Wilson and George Kelling theory; and practiced by William Bratton, we
can see how our concentration of dwindling law enforcement resources on response to urgent calls has
resulted in a corresponding decline in the ability of those resources to maintain social order. That loss
of social order not only increases the perception of higher crime, it is a contributing causal factor behind
crime.
We can also apply the same reasoning to blight. We have all seen the devolution of a
neighborhood, and how it starts with one property whose owner “lets it go.” That leads to
disinvestment by neighboring owners, which leads to declining value and further disinvestment.
But even if we disagree with the “broken windows” theory, one must ask: what can using
heightened enforcement hurt?
Where we have neglected to pay full attention to these so-called minor or nuisance crimes,
though, is the revenue potential that they hold. By dedicating resources to them, we believe we can not
only make a significant impact on both real and perceived crime in Saginaw, but generate significant
amounts of general fund revenue in fines.
In so doing, we are taking the most proactive stance possible: we are not only no longer
retreating from advancing crime and blight, but attacking it, head-on and aggressively. This is the only
realistic way we can resist eventually being overtaken by them.
It is not so much a method by which to realize revenue enhancement. While the activities
recommended here can, indeed, enhance revenues, it is the way in which special deployments are 3
devoted to the task that makes it something else: a new, if short- to intermediate-term model for
enhancing delivery of public safety services, making an enormous positive impact on the community’s
(real and perceived) quality of life and draw down the structural deficit.
Short- to intermediate-term? You can only write so many tickets. The best-case scenario, from
an effectiveness standpoint, is that after a few years of enhanced enforcement, that violations may begin
to drop off.
This will curtail revenue. However, the decline in violations will also precipitate a stabilization
and increase in property values and increased economic development activity  — and, ultimately,
increased revenue for the city. The increased — and increasingly visible — law enforcement presence
should also result in a lower crime rate, thus reducing demand on police services.
This concept requires:
1. Establishment of a municipal ordinance violation bureau
2. Incorporation of the Michigan vehicle code into the city’s code of ordinances
3. Empowerment of appropriate new personnel to issue and service  violation notices and
tickets
4. Possible increases in the table of civil infraction fines
5. Deployment of a number of police officers dedicated solely to enforcement of  ordinance
violations and misdemeanors
6. Deployment of on-duty firefighters for investigating code and environmental complaints,
patrolling neighborhoods and issuing ordinance violation tickets
7. Certification of a certain number of police officers in commercial vehicle enforcement4
Ordinance Requirements
Municipal Ordinance Violation Bureau
Under Michigan law, a justice system assessment is not required on ordinance violation fines
process through a municipal ordinance violation bureau. The only statutory requirement for such a
bureau is an ordinance establishing one. It would appear that Saginaw has already done this, as per
§37.05 (A) of the City of Saginaw Code of Ordinances.
Michigan Vehicle Code
Moving violations are established by the Michigan Vehicle Code and, as such, are violations of
state law. Enforcement of them, by itself, would require disposition through the district court system.
However, a municipality can choose to  incorporate the Michigan Vehicle Code into its code of
ordinances, therefore making those moving violations an ordinance violation. This means the
municipality is able to process fines through its municipal ordinance violation bureau, again eliminating
the need for a justice system assessment. Again, it would appear Saginaw has already done this, as well,
as per §30.99 (C) and §70.01 (A) of the City of Saginaw Code of Ordinances.
Issuance of Violation Notices and Citations
Section 37.01 of the City of Saginaw Code of Ordinances  says “A police officer or other
personnel of the City of Saginaw authorized by this code or any ordinance to issue municipal civil
infraction citations or municipal civil infraction violation notices.” This may require an amended
ordinance that specifically defines firefighters and/or public safety officers as so authorized.
Similarly, §37.06 (C) empowers the City Manager to appoint a number of named positions the
authority to issue and service appearance tickets. While this currently includes most code enforcement
personnel and “fire investigator,” it should be amended to include firefighters and/or public safety
officers.
Schedule of Civil Infraction Fines
It appears that the City of Saginaw’s
schedule of civil infraction fines was last updated
in 1996. It may be necessary or desirable to revisit
this schedule and possibly increase some of these fines — particularly the Class C civil infraction, which
is the penalty for most of the violations that would be covered by this plan.
City of Saginaw Civil Infraction Fines
Class of
Offense
First Offense First Repeat  Second /
Subsequent
A $10.00 $20.00 $30.00
B $25.00 $50.00 $100.00
C $50.00 $100.00 $200.00
D $100.00 $200.00 $400.00
E $200.00 $350.00 $500.00
F $300.00 $400.00 $500.005
Source: Saginaw Police Department Year-End Report, 2010
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2007 2008 2009 2010
Traffic Stops
Index Crimes
Table 1. Officer-Initiated Activity vs. Violent Crimes
Saginaw, Michigan, 2007-2018
Police Deployment
While we have written here primarily about the  effect implementation of this effort would have on
“minor” civil infractions and misdemeanors, it’s important to note at the outset that there would be
some direct residual benefit on the city’s violent crime. We know that increases in traffic stops and
other officer-initiated activities
help find violent criminals. Table
1 shows the correlation
between officer-initiated activity
— traffic stops, in this case —
and violent  crime in Saginaw
from 2007 to 2010.
Rather than depend on
the ability of the current or
future deployment of police
patrol officers to initiate
activities in large numbers, this
plan depends on dedicated deployments of officers.  Consensus among Saginaw police officers and
command staff suggests that, in the course of a 12-hour shift, an officer can easily write between 15 and
20 violation notices, whether they Title XIII violations or traffic violations.
It is important to note that, at least for the immediate future, there is no shortage of
opportunities for officers to write tickets. Traffic on most of Saginaw’s streets is regularly traveling at 15
to 20 mph over the posted limits. Noise, curfew and fireworks violations are  ubiquitous. Add in the
ability for the officers to also write parking and SCENIC violations, and we believe it would be difficult, if
not impossible, for an officer to not encounter the opportunity to issue 15 to 20 violations per 12-hour
shift — at least for the foreseeable future.
It is recognized that there are circumstances in which even officers dedicated to this deployment
will be needed — to control the scene of a major crime or the scene of an accident or disaster. The key
to success is to ensure that these “call away” situations are minimized. This can be done by ensuring that:
 a daily quota of violations is part of the performance evaluation criteria of any officer so
deployed
 the shift supervisor would have the sole authority to call a deployed officer away for other
purposes6
 shift supervisor’s performance evaluations would also include an appraisal of how well they
have been able to preserve the special deployments
Projections suggest that each officer so deployed should be able to generate nearly a half-million
dollars in net revenue — that is, above and beyond enough to cover his or her salary and benefits.
Revenue Projections
The appendix contains a number of different illustrations showing possible revenues that can be
generated by police deployments alone. These projections use several different variables:
A. Number of officers  on the special  deployment per 12-hour shift. The ideal arrangement
would be to have at least four — one in each quadrant of the city. In this regard, they would
function almost like CPOs — and perhaps could eventually transition into a similar role.
B. Number of citations written per shift. Police personnel estimate 15 to 20, but this depends
on the type of citation, location and time of day. Traffic citations, for example, can be
written as fast as drivers can be pulled over during morning and evening drive times, or on I-
675. Most code and environmental enforcement activities would take place during daylight
hours. The police shift schedule tends to offer both shifts equal access to “prime time” for
ticket activity.
C. Average fine. A first-offense class-C civil infraction is $50. Fines for commercial vehicle
violations are frequently between $200 and $500.
D. The city’s collection rate, both through the MOVB and through subsequent processing
through district court. For most of our projections, this proposal assumes that 50 percent
of civil infraction violators will admit responsibility and pay. Of the remaining 50 percent, it
is estimated that half will end up paying all or part while 25 percent will be dismissed or
remain uncollected.
E. Percentage of civil infractions vs. misdemeanors. Officers on this deployment are
encouraged to enforce both, but the mix may vary.
F. The necessity of additional support staff for the MOVB. Current fiscal services could handle
a certain amount of additional violations, but it would be anticipated that higher levels would
require additional support staff and operating revenue.
Table 2 contains a number of revenue projections. Employee expense for police officers is taken
from per-person cost of existing police services from the administration’s presentation: $15.7 million
divided by 111 positions (91 sworn, 20 non-sworn) or $141,597. Employee expense for administration is
based on salary of a collection specialist in Fiscal Services account number 101-1740 ($48,462) and a 7
benefit multiplier of 86% based on fringe benefits in that same account, or a total of $90,139 per person.
The projections are based on two 12-hour shifts per day, 300 days per year.
Column A is the worst-case scenario, showing one officer on each of two shifts, each writing 15
tickets with only a $50 average fine and a collection rate of only 33%. Even then, the deployment earns a
net revenue of $59,000. Columns B and C show what is believed to be a more realistic, yet
conservative, projection based on the deployment of one and  four officers per shift. Variables that
change from projection to projection are highlighted. Column E shows the addition of one officer per
shift assigned strictly to commercial vehicles on I-675 and state highways in addition to a deployment of
four officers per shift; Column F bumps the commercial deployment up to two officers per shift.
Revenue includes the city’s share of fines that are process through the district court. Complete
calculations underlying the projections are in the appendix.
Table 2. Projected Revenue from Special Police Deployment
A B C D E F
Officers/shift 1 1 4 4 4/1 4/2
Citations/officer/shift 15 18 18 18 18 18
Average fine $50 $75 $75 $100 $75/$200 $75/200
City collection rate: 33 50 50 50 50 50
% Ordinance  66 66 66 66 66 66
Support staff 0 0 2 2 2 2
Gross revenue $342,536 $760,499 $3,041,996 $4,055,994 $4,594,496 $6,146,996
Officer costs $283,194 $283,194 $1,132,776 $1,132,776 $1,415,970 $1,699,164
Admin expense $0 $0 $83,355 $83,355 $83,355 $83,355
Operating expense $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Total expense $283,194 $283,194 $1,221,131 $1,221,131 $1,504,325 $1,787,519
Net revenue $59,342 $477,305 $1,820,865 $2,834,863 $3,090,171 $4,359,477
  8
Fire Deployment
Six years ago when Len Mattarese delivered his report on finding greater efficiencies in Saginaw’s public
safety operations, he noted the major “problem” expense in having a full-time professional firefighting
staff. The majority of their working hours are spent waiting for fire calls. While Saginaw’s hire fire load
leaves its firefighters waiting a little less than other cities’, actual hands-on firefighting still makes up only
a portion of the Saginaw firefighter’s day.
It was Mr. Matterese who first suggested the model followed by Albany, New York, in which
firefighters double as building inspectors. This plan would have firefighters cross-trained to be building
inspectors and code and environmental enforcement specialists. And, during each shift, at least one
firefighter from each station would be “on patrol”  — looking for building code or environmental
infractions and writing tickets for them, and responding to complaints logged with the clerk’s office.
These firefighters would represent the “proactive” approach to enforcement. Additional fire
staff can also fulfill inspections-related duties on an on-call, as-needed basis — performing the mandatory
biennial inspections of each rental property, for example. This would enhance the ability of the city to
offer service on the more response-driven, “reactive” side.
Unlike the special deployments of police officers, these firefighter/inspectors would be expected
to be called away regularly for fire calls. But even with a maximum of two fire calls per day, “patrol”
firefighters can be expected to write at least 10 to 12 violation notices per day. As John Stemple says,
you can’t drive far on city streets without seeing a violation; you can write them as fast as you can drive
to them.
Most of these would also be class C municipal civil infractions, carrying fines of $50 — although
aggressive enforcement and regular patrol would increase the number of second- and third-offense
tickets at $100 and $200, respectively. For projections, an average per-ticket fine of $50 has been used.
Because this plan does not call for additional firefighting staff, personnel cost has been left at
zero. The major expense item, however, would be vehicle expense: each firefighter “on patrol” would
need a vehicle. Projections assume a vehicle cost of $50,000 per firefighter, which would liberally cover
the cost of the purchase of a new vehicle and most of a year’s operating costs.
Revenue potential here is not as high as it is on the police side, if only because, by nature, most
of these violations must be written during the daylight hours. For this reason, projections assume only
one “shift” per day. And, as with the police projections, these are based on 300 days per year. Table 3
shows a number of scenarios in which the number of firefighters and collection staff are the  main
variables.9
Column A is the worst-case minimum: one firefighter per day writing tickets at an average fine
of $50 and a 33-percent collection rate. Column B keeps the collection rate at 33 percent, but has four
firefighters on at a time. This would be the ideal situation, with one covering each quadrant of the city.
column C shows the city’s collection rate rising from 33 to 50 percent; in column D it increases to 75.
Table 3. Projected Revenue from Proactive Fire Deployment
A B C D E F
Firefighters/shift 1 4 4 4 8 8
Citations/FF/shift 12 12 12 12 12 12
Average fine $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $75
City collection rate: 33 33 50 75 75 75
% Ordinance  100 100 100 100 100 100
Support staff 0 0 0 0 1 2
Gross revenue $84,500 $338,000 $434,925 $577,463 $1,154,925 $1,732,388
Firefighter costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Admin expense $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,677 $83,355
Operating expense $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $5,000
Vehicle cost $50,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $400,000 $400,000
Total expense $50,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $444,177 $488,355
Net revenue $34,500 $138,000 $234,925 $377,463 $710,748 $1,244,033
It is also recommended that firefighters be used to find additional cost-efficiencies. For example,
as a matter of departmental policy, police no longer send an officer out to the complainant for property
crimes. Victims must come to the police headquarters and make a complaint to get a report for
insurance purposes.
Firefighters can, and are certainly willing, to respond to those calls, go to the complainant’s
home or business and complete the paperwork. While this will not generate additional revenue, it will
go a long way towards improving the our public safety personnel’s image of responsiveness and empathy
for the citizens.
Firefighters would also be able to fulfill some of the roles of community police officers  —
attending neighborhood association meetings, taking complaint calls, mentoring in schools. Again, there
is no additional revenue here, but an increase in positive customer contact.
Firefighters could also be authorized to issue parking violation notices — which would have
positive revenue impact. 10
Diagram 1: Current Public Safety Staffing Model
Diagram 2: Proposed Model Initial Implementation
Organizational Structure
From the Mattarese report through Mr. Ludos’ examination of the department, it has been the position
that Saginaw’s high crime rate and hire fire load makes it unsuitable for the traditional PSO model —
cross-trained police and firefighters. However, by adding the third leg of the public safety stool, building
and environmental inspections and enforcement, we can look at  what might be described as a
transitional model of public safety cross training. It does not demand immediate cross-training — saving
the city training money and eliminating the need to lay off police officers, firefighters or inspectors who,
for whatever reason, will not cross-train. It allows professional growth through multiple cross-training
platforms. And once it reaches critical mass,
it offers the ultimate in scheduling and
deployment flexibility.
Our current structural model is in
diagram 1.  It shows two “levels” of
inspections: the environmental enforcement
of city codes, and the more specialized
building inspections — electrical, mechanical,
structural. We have a small number of police officers who are cross-trained for fire service. And we
have a slightly larger number of firefighters who are trained or being trained for building inspections.
Diagram two shows how this structure would look with the initial implementation of this plan
— which is to say, not terribly different. The overlap between inspections and fire would grow, as more
firefighters are cross-trained, particularly in environmental and basic ordinance enforcement.
The overlap between police and fire would grow.  There would still be a number of crosstrained officers — and, presumably, an
eventual contingent of firefighters who
cross-train for police work. But the
immediate overlap would be functional,
with firefighters assuming some duties
traditionally done by police (or police
department staff) that do not require being
sworn as a police officer.
  11
Diagram 3: Proposed Model Final Staffing
This transitional model paves the
way for the end goal, which is pictured in
diagram 3. The basic environmental and
ordinance enforcement  — from junk cars
to dog ordinance violations — is the shared
responsibility for all three legs of the stool
(as well as others; there’s no reason why
public works employees should not be able
to cite violations, too.)
That basic environmental
enforcement would be the job requiring the
least amount of specialized training; it would
therefore be considered the entry-level
position, if it indeed existed. It is not
anticipated that a position of environmental enforcement officer would need to exist after full
deployment of this plan.
At the next level would be those who are trained and, where applicable, certified or licensed in
one of the three public safety disciplines — police, fire or inspections. We would see these positions
eventually decline due to attrition.
The third-level position would be cross-trained in two of the three disciplines.
Officers trained in fire and inspections would function as noted in the firefighter deployment
section above. It is the so-called “Albany model,” in which firefighters perform inspections and code
enforcement duties during fire downtime.
Officers trained in police and inspections could be deployed in much the same way: doing
inspections and code-enforcement duties and serving as on-call backup for police officers. This would
also be a good combination for officers serving the role as community police officers.
Officers trained as police and firefighters would most likely be deployed in the typical PSO
manner — have them on the street as police officers, responding as needed for fire calls.
The fourth level is a person trained in all three disciplines — which offers complete flexibility in
scheduling and callbacks. Such a person could serve in almost any role on an on-call basis.
Obviously, pay scales would be commensurate with the amount of training required for each
level. 12
Conclusion
This model does not solve all of Saginaw’s financial problems, and other measures must be explored to
continue to find ways to streamline public safety operating budgets, such as:
 Exploring multi-jurisdictional authorities or other initiatives.
 Negotiating more cost-effective options for retiree healthcare.
 Adding monitoring staff and offering RAPTOR capabilities as a pay-to-participate service for
businesses.
What this model does, though, is forces an orderly and organic combination and/or
reassignment of duties to reflect the modern needs of the City of Saginaw — rather than the traditional
roles of its employee groups. It helps us find a new and more cost-effective way to deliver service
without losing the experience of senior staff. And it helps us capture millions of dollars of potential
revenue while very aggressively attacking the breakdown in social order that is a significant contributing
factor to the city’s crime and blight.
Most importantly, it is a steadfast refusal to retreat one more time in the face of increasing need
and decreasing resources. Such retreats have left us with an intolerably high rate of violent crime and
have driven away residents, businesses and investment. If we are to survive as a city, we have no ground
left to give. Appendix
Public Safety Revenue Projections: Police Table 1
Number of dedicated officers deployed per shift: 1 Gross City Revenue: $760,499
Number of citations written per officer per shift: 18 Officer Costs: $283,194
Average fine: $75 Administrative Costs: $0
City collection rate: 50 Operating Costs: $0
Percentage of citations ordinance vs. misdemeanor: 66 Total Cost: $283,194
Additional support staff for processing 0 Net Revenue: $477,305
Base Calculations Phase I City Ordinance Collections Phase 2 Ordinance Collections Misdemeanor Collections
Shifts/Day 2 Citations collected 7,128 Citations referred to Court 7,128 Citations referred to Court 7,344
Officers/Day 2 Gross Revenue $534,600 Percent collected in full 50 Percent collected in full 50
Citatons/Shift 36 Number collected in full 3,564 Number collected in full 3,672
Citations/Day 72 Fines generated $267,300 Fines generated $275,400
Days/Year 300 Percent collected in part 25 Percent collected in part 25
Number collected in part 1,782 Number collected in part 1,836
Ordinance citations/Year 14,256 Average fine $38 Average Fine $38
Misdemeanor citations/Year 7,344 Fines generated $66,825 Fines generated $68,850
Check 21,600 Number dismissed 1,782 Number dismissed/waived 1,836
21,600 Total fines $334,125 Total fines $344,250
County share $223,864 County share $230,648
City share $111,264 City share $114,635
Revenue Summary Expenditures
City Phase 1 Ordinance Revenue $534,600 Personnel Salary Benefit % Benefits Total Per person cost from admin presentation
City Phase 2 Ordinance Revenue $111,264 Police Officer, per $54,772 140 $76,681 $131,453 $141,597
City Misdemeanor Revenue $114,635 Administrative, per $48,462 86 $41,677 $90,139
Total City Revenue $760,499 Operating costs per admin: $2,500
County Ordinance Revenue $223,864
County Misdemeanor Revenue $230,648
Total County Revenue $454,51114
Public Safety Revenue Projections: Police Table 2
Number of dedicated officers deployed per shift: 4 Gross City Revenue: $4,055,994
Number of citations written per officer per shift: 18 Officer Costs: $1,132,776
Average fine: $100 Administrative Costs: $83,355
City collection rate: 50 Operating Costs: $5,000
Percentage of citations ordinance vs. misdemeanor: 66 Total Cost: $1,221,131
Additional support staff for processing 2 Net Revenue: $2,834,863
Base Calculations Phase I City Ordinance Collections Phase 2 Ordinance Collections Misdemeanor Collections
Shifts/Day 2 Citations collected 28,512 Citations referred to Court 28,512 Citations referred to Court 29,376
Officers/Day 8 Gross Revenue $2,851,200 Percent collected in full 50 Percent collected in full 50
Citatons/Shift 144 Number collected in full 14,256 Number collected in full 14,688
Citations/Day 288 Fines generated $1,425,600 Fines generated $1,468,800
Days/Year 300 Percent collected in part 25 Percent collected in part 25
Number collected in part 7,128 Number collected in part 7,344
Ordinance citations/Year 57,024 Average fine $50 Average Fine $50
Misdemeanor citations/Year 29,376 Fines generated $356,400 Fines generated $367,200
Check 86400 Number dismissed 7,128 Number dismissed/waived 7344
86400 Total fines $1,782,000 Total fines $1,836,000
County share $1,193,940 County share $1,230,120
City share $593,406 City share $611,388
Revenue Summary Expenditures
City Phase 1 Ordinance Revenue $2,851,200 Personnel Salary Benefit % Benefits Total Per person cost from admin presentation
City Phase 2 Ordinance Revenue $593,406 Police Officer, per $54,772 140 $76,681 $131,453 $141,597
City Misdemeanor Revenue $611,388 Administrative, per $48,462 86 $41,677 $90,139
Total City Revenue $4,055,994 Operating costs per admin: $2,500
County Ordinance Revenue $1,193,940
County Misdemeanor Revenue $1,230,120
Total County Revenue $2,424,06015
Public Safety Revenue Projections: Police w Commercial Detail Table 3
Number of regular officers deployed per shift: 4 Gross City Revenue: $4,594,496
Officers dedicated to commercial enforcement/shift 1
Number of citations written per officer per shift: 18 Officer Costs: $1,415,970
Average fine: $75 Administrative Costs: $83,355
Commercial fine: $200
City collection rate: 50 Operating Costs: $5,000
Percentage of citations ordinance vs. misdemeanor: 66 Total Cost: $1,504,325
Additional support staff for processing 2 Net Revenue: $3,090,171
Base Calculations Phase I City Ordinance Collections Phase 2 Ordinance Collections/Regular Commercial Misdemeanor Collections
Shifts/Day 2 Citations collected 28512 Citations referred to Court 28512 5400 Citations referred to Court 29376
Regular Officers/Day 8 Gross Revenue $2,138,400 Percent collected in full 50 50 Percent collected in full 50
Commercial Officers/Day 2 Number collected in full 14256 2700
Regular Citatons/Shift 144 Number collected in full 14688
Regular Citations/Day 288 Phase I Commercial Collections Fines generated $1,069,200 $540,000 Fines generated $1,101,600
Commercial Citations/Day 36 Citations/year 10800 Percent collected in part 25 25 Percent collected in part 25
Days/Year 300 Citations collected 5400 Number collected in part 7128 1350 Number collected in part 7344
Ordinance citations/Year 57024 Gross Revenue $1,080,000 Average fine $38 $100 Average Fine $38
Misdemeanor citations/Year 29376 Fines generated $267,300 $135,000 Fines generated $275,400
Check 86400 Number dismissed 7128 1350 Number dismissed/waived 7344
86400 Total fines $1,336,500 $675,000 Total fines $1,377,000
County share $895,455 $202,500.0 County share $922,590
City share $445,055 $472,500.0 City share $458,541
Revenue Summary Expenditures
City Phase 1 Ordinance Revenue $2,138,400 Personnel Salary Benefit % Benefits Total Per person cost from admin presentation
City Phase 1 Commercial Revenue $1,080,000
City Phase 2 Ordinance Revenue $445,055 Police Officer, per $54,772 140 $76,681 $131,453 $141,597
City Phase II Commercial Revenue $472,500
City Misdemeanor Revenue $458,541 Administrative, per $48,462 86 $41,677 $90,139
Total City Revenue $4,594,496 Operating costs per admin: $2,500
County Ordinance Revenue $895,455
County Misdemeanor Revenue $922,59016
Public Safety Revenue Projections: Police w Commercial Detail Table 4
Number of regular officers deployed per shift: 4 Gross City Revenue: $6,146,996
Officers dedicated to commercial enforcement/shift 2
Number of citations written per officer per shift: 18 Officer Costs: $1,699,164
Average fine: $75 Administrative Costs: $83,355
Commercial fine: $200
City collection rate: 50 Operating Costs: $5,000
Percentage of citations ordinance vs. misdemeanor: 66 Total Cost: $1,787,519
Additional support staff for processing 2 Net Revenue: $4,359,477
Base Calculations Phase I City Ordinance Collections Phase 2 Ordinance Collections/Regular Commercial Misdemeanor Collections
Shifts/Day 2 Citations collected 28512 Citations referred to Court 28512 10800 Citations referred to Court 29376
Regular Officers/Day 8 Gross Revenue $2,138,400 Percent collected in full 50 50 Percent collected in full 50
Commercial Officers/Day 4 Number collected in full 14256 5400
Regular Citatons/Shift 144 Number collected in full 14688
Regular Citations/Day 288 Phase I Commercial Collections Fines generated $1,069,200 $1,080,000 Fines generated $1,101,600
Commercial Citations/Day 72 Citations/year 21600 Percent collected in part 25 25 Percent collected in part 25
Days/Year 300 Citations collected 10800 Number collected in part 7128 2700 Number collected in part 7344
Ordinance citations/Year 57024 Gross Revenue $2,160,000 Average fine $38 $100 Average Fine $38
Misdemeanor citations/Year 29376 Fines generated $267,300 $270,000 Fines generated $275,400
Check 86400 Number dismissed 7128 2700 Number dismissed/waived 7344
86400 Total fines $1,336,500 $1,350,000 Total fines $1,377,000
County share $895,455 $405,000.0 County share $922,590
City share $445,055 $945,000.0 City share $458,541
Revenue Summary Expenditures
City Phase 1 Ordinance Revenue $2,138,400 Personnel Salary Benefit % Benefits Total Per person cost from admin presentation
City Phase 1 Commercial Revenue $2,160,000
City Phase 2 Ordinance Revenue $445,055 Police Officer, per $54,772 140 $76,681 $131,453 $141,597
City Phase II Commercial Revenue $945,000
City Misdemeanor Revenue $458,541 Administrative, per $48,462 86 $41,677 $90,139
Total City Revenue $6,146,996 Operating costs per admin: $2,500
County Ordinance Revenue $895,455
County Misdemeanor Revenue $922,590
Total County Revenue $1,818,04517
Public Safety Revenue Projections: Fire/Inspections Table 5
Number of officers deployed per fire shift: 8 Gross City Revenue: $1,732,388
Number of citations written per office per shift: 12 Firefighter  Costs: $0
Average fine: $75 Administrative Costs: $83,355
City collection rate: 75 Operating Costs: $5,000
Percentage of citations ordinance vs. misdemeanor: 100 Vehicle Costs: $400,000
Additional support staff for processing 2 Total Cost: $488,355
Net Revenue: $1,244,033
Base Calculations Phase I City Ordinance Collections Phase 2 Ordinance Collections Misdemeanor Collections
Shifts/Day 1 Citations collected 21,600 Citations referred to Court 7,200 Citations referred to Court 0
Officers/Day 8 Gross Revenue $1,620,000 Percent collected in full 50 Percent collected in full 50
Citatons/Shift 96 Number collected in full 3,600 Number collected in full 0
Citations/Day 96 Fines generated $270,000 Fines generated $0
Days/Year 300 Percent collected in part 25 Percent collected in part 25
Number collected in part 1,800 Number collected in part 0
Ordinance citations/Year 28,800 Average fine $38 Average Fine $38
Misdemeanor citations/Year 0 Fines generated $67,500 Fines generated $0
Check 28800 Number dismissed 1,800 Number dismissed/waived 0
28800 Total fines $337,500 Total fines $0
County share $226,125 County share $0
City share $112,388 City share $0
Revenue Summary Expenditures
City Phase 1 Ordinance Revenue $1,620,000 Personnel Salary Benefit % Benefits Total Per person cost from admin presentation
City Phase 2 Ordinance Revenue $112,388 Police Officer, per $54,772 140 $76,681 $131,453 $141,597