Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 60B60B City Council Meeting Correspondence 6/18/2019 APPROVE AMENDMENT AGREEMENT WITH ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES TO PROVIDE SERVICES AT VARIOUS PARKS OR AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE SECURITY SERVICES AT VARIOUS PARKS Date of Name Representative of In Favor In Opposition Comment Correspondence of RA*. of RA.* 1 6/17/2019 Tim Johnson Santa Ana Resident Yes 2 6118/2019 Susan C. Muzila Santa Ana Resident Yes 3 6/18/2019 Phil Schaefer Santa Ana Resident Yes *RA- Recommended Action Wednesday, June 19, 2019 Page 1 of 1 From: Tim Johnson < Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 5:07 PM To: eComment; Solorio, Jose; Sarmiento, Vicente; Villegas, Juan; Pulido, Miguel; Iglesias, Cecilia; Penaloza, David Cc: Ridge, Kristine Subject: Parks Security- Agenda Item 60B This email is regarding Agenda Item 60B, where council will be considering adding additional security at various parks in the city until such a time that a reliable parks ranger program can be established. I am supportive of improving the quality of life of our residents and the enjoyable use of our parks and trails. I believe that additional security patrols until such a time that a parks ranger program can be brought back to our city may be effective in those goals but it also must be done in a fiscally responsible manner and with the goals in mind instead of just throwing additional security at a problem. However, I am concerned about this 3rd amendment as presented in the staff report. I believe that the program can be made even better with the desire to improve the quality of life for those who desire to enjoy our parks in safe manner especially for our children. A few of my concerns are as follows: 1. Parks Covered- This program identifies 5 parks to be patrolled plus additional trails. I believe that it is important to allow the security patrols to not only cover the identified parks and trails but also to provide additional services to other parks throughout the city. If there are additional parks that need attention, then we should be including them. This is especially true since a lot of problems we encounter in our city are transitory meaning that when you clean up one area, it may impact another area ... the problems may just move instead of actually being solved. We need to allow the security patrols to respond to the movement of problems and not just stick to an existing routine. We need to allow our city to make changes within the scope of the program. 2. Time of Patrols- The budget proposal with Allied is identified as daytime shift patrols. Having daytime shifts are important but nighttime shifts are also important and should be built into the program from the beginning. Hopefully, this is a distinction without a difference in the budget language. 3. 5 Park Limitation- I feel that having patrols across the city is important and so having identified parks in each of the wards is great. However, by limiting the covered parks to an arbitrary number we may be hindering the patrols of doing the best job that they can be doing. The city has parks that are literally across the street from each other that can easily be joined into one patrol. We should allow the security patrols to have eyes on other parks and not just the identified ones. This is especially true for parks that can be patrolled from the car... essentially drive by type parks or a quick ground patrol due to the small size of some of our parks. 4. Accountability- I believe that the public has the right to see the results of the parks security patrols and feel that statistics should be published on the city's website weekly to show the number of encounters at each park, the types of problems encountered, the results of those encounters. We should also require patrols to report all graffiti or other maintenance issues encountered on patrol and not just suggest it (shall versus must). I am in Ward 3 and am concerned that we are ignoring both Jack Fisher Park and Morrison Park. Both of these parks are easily accessible. Both of these parks can easily be on the way from one of the identified parks to another one (i.e. driving from Santiago Park to Riverview or Edna Parks). I am concerned that if patrol is stepped up in the Santiago Creek area and Santiago Creek, this may impact Jack Fisher Park which I have to assume is not the desired result. I envision other parks having the same issues. As a resident of Ward 3, 1 would encourage you to include Jack Fisher Park and Morrison Park on the patrol schedule for the security guards. Jack Fisher Park has been impacted by various undesirable actions by some and with some additional support, I believe that we can make it a great park once again that can be enjoyed by the families in the area who can easily walk to this park. 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 Orozco, Norma From: Susan Muzila < Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 9:01 AM To: eComment Subject: Jack Fisher Park and Morrison Park We have recently been informed of the possibility of Security Patrol for our Parks in Ward 3 as well as other wards of Santa Ana community. While this is exciting news I noticed that a few of the Parks are not mentioned in the Patrol area scope. Jack Fisher Park and Morrison Park and within 1 block of each other. I fear that not including those parks will only push those troubles into those areas which already have significant problems. Jack Fisher Park is frequently visited by children and has become more and more a problem where neighbors can no longer bring children there. In addition Jack Fisher backs up to several homes. The new fence that was to deter individuals from accessing the riverbed has been compromised so many times it's sad. I personally have experience multiple people throwing their belongings over the bridge on Flower and then climbing over the fence (or under) and accessing the riverbed from there. We are blessed to have some great parks in our area of town. Additionally, the pure numbers of parks in our Ward also make it tough to pick just 5. 1 don't think we should be limiting the program to just the 5 parks identified. We should to allow the security patrol professionals to do theirjob the best that they can which involves some flexibility along with oversight. Please consider adding these parks to your list. Thank you Susan C. Muzila N Orono, Norma From: Phil Schaefer < Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 10:59 AM To: eComment; Ridge, Kristine; Solorio, lose Subject: agenda item 60B Please do not omit parks from the proposed patrols. Shouldn't all Santa Ana parks be safe? There have been repeated problems at Jack Fisher Park for several years now. While some progress was made by adding a fence drug users, dealers and homeless still frequent the park daily. Don't our children deserve a clean and safe park? Would this happen in Irvine? Both Jack Fisher Park and Morrison Park should be added to the list. PHIL SCHAEFER Realtor S Orozco, Norma From: Cynthia Dirksen < Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 11:07 AM To: eComment Subject: Fw: Agenda Item 60B Re -sending w/ corrected address for eeomment. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Cynthia Dirksen < To: e-comment@santa-ana.org <e-comment@santa-ana.org> Cc: jsolorio@santa-ana.org <jsolorio@santa-ana.org>; kridge@santa-ana.org <kridge@santa-ana.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019, 10:13:15 AM PDT Subject: Agenda Item 60B Dear City Leaders, My name is Cynthia Hutchcraft and I am anew resident of West Floral Park, Santa Ana. I heard about agenda item 60B and the additional park security patrols from a neighbor, and felt a strong need to write this note on behalf of Jack Fischer Park. I frequent Jack Fisher Park quite often, usually while walking my dog. In just the past week, I've witnessed the following: A homeless camp near the back of the park and the debris that goes along with it; Two young men with backpacks jumping over the bridge from the creels bed onto Flower Street, constantly looking over their shoulders; People parked in their cars on Flower Street, in front of the park, with their windows down, apparently waiting for something. This occurs every single afternoon. What they are doing, I don't know, but they clearly don't like it when I make eye contact with them. I get an unmistakable sense they are up to no good. I am asking that you please include Jack Fischer Park on the security patrol; any additional presence will help. Local residents want to feel safe bringing their children or pets to the park, but it's a wish right now, and not a reality. Sincerely, Cynthia Hutchcraft Q..Qpez, Kenna From: Marilyn Bernaudo < Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 6:05 PM To: eComment Subject: Park security proposal This is not effective. The people loitering know their rights and security will not detef them. I see no difference from security calling police officer as compared to residents calling police officer. It's just a waste of money if this security patrol carrot really engage with offenders. If all they can do is appear strong and ask someone to leave... That will not work. It is a waste. I am offended as a lifetime Santa Ana resident that this is being done. That the funds generated for our city is going to waste. All residents who have been here long enough know that security guards are not feared by homeless, They have nothing to fear but to be physically thrown out but you aren't even going to allow these security guards to that. Word will get out quick that these guys are just clowns (in their eyes). Shame on council for allowing this and sahme.of previous council for allowing Santa Ana do be a. dumping ground.