Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014.02.18 City Council AgendaCity Council City of University Park Meeting Agenda City Hall 3800 University Blvd. University Park, TX 75205 Council Chamber5:00 PMTuesday, February 18, 2014 PRE-MEETING WORK SESSION(S): 4 - 4:15 P.M. The City Council will meet in open work session with Director of Parks Gerry Bradley who will review a request to improve McFarlin Blvd. medians, east of Dublin. No action will be taken. Council Conference Room, 2nd floor, City Hall. 4:15 - 5 P.M. The City Council will meet in open work session to receive agenda item briefings from staff. No action will be taken. Council Conference Room, 2nd floor, City Hall. TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM Anyone wishing to address the Council on any item must fill out a green “Request to Speak” form and return it to the City Secretary. When called forward by the Mayor, before beginning their remarks, speakers are asked to go to the podium and state their name and address for the record. I.CALL TO ORDER A.INVOCATION: Councilmember Bob Begert B.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Begert / Boy Scouts C.INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL: Mayor W. Richard Davis D.INTRODUCTION OF STAFF: City Manager Bob Livingston II.AWARDS AND RECOGNITION None III.CONSENT AGENDA Receive University Park Police Department Annual Traffic Stop AnalysisA.14-018 Staff Report University Park PD 2013 Traffic Analysis Report Attachments: IV.MAIN AGENDA Page 1 City of University Park Printed on 2/14/2014 February 18, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda Consider and act on an ordinance authorizing the removal of the "Loading Zone" along the west side of the street in front of 6719 Hillcrest A.14-020 Staff Report Ordinance repealing parking restrictions Attachments: Consider and act on an ordinance designating NO PARKING along the south side of Villanova , west from Tulane to Pickwick B.14-021 Staff Report PCBC Request Letter Ordinance - No Parking Villanova Attachments: V.PUBLIC COMMENTS Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda should do so at this time . Please be advised that under the Texas Open Meetings Act , the Council cannot discuss or act at this meeting on a matter that is not listed on the Agenda . However, in response to an inquiry, a Council member may respond with a statement of specific factual information or a recitation of existing policy. Other questions or private comments for the City Council or Staff should be directed to that individual immediately following the meeting. VI.ADJOURNMENT As authorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be convened into Closed Executive Session for the purpose of seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any Agenda items listed herein. CERTIFICATE: I, Elizabeth Spector, City Secretary, do hereby certify that a copy of this Agenda was posted on the City Hall bulletin board, a place convenient and readily accessible to the general public at all times, and on the City's website, www.uptexas.org, in compliance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code. DATE OF POSTING:____________________________ TIME OF POSTING:_____________________________ ________________________________ Elizabeth Spector, City Secretary Page 2 City of University Park Printed on 2/14/2014 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 P:\Agenda Packets\916_City Council_2_18_2014\0001_1_Staff Report.docx 2:52 PM 03/13 AGENDA MEMO 2/18/2014 Agenda TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Greg Spradlin, Chief of Police SUBJECT: University Park Police Department Annual Traffic Stop Analysis BACKGROUND: The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 2.134 Compilation and Analysis of Information Collected, requires the police chief to report to the governing body of the City the findings of the compilation and analysis of traffic stops and related searches. This analysis is conducted to determine if racial profiling is being practiced by the agency in traffic stops and subsequent searches during those stops. This year the University Park Police Department again submitted all required data on traffic stops and searches to the University of North Texas for scrutiny. This study was conducted by the Professional Development Institute (PDI) at the University of North Texas. Copies of the final report have been provided to all elected city officials, the city manager, the city attorney and others as requested. PDI’s findings can be found on page 7 of the report. The report shows that the University Park Police Department is in full compliance with the law as it relates to racial profiling; that a formal policy prohibiting racial profiling is in place; that officers receive mandated training on this subject and that the agency has established programs to educate the public about racial profiling and how to file a complaint; that a formalized complaint process is in place and that the collection of data is carried out in compliance with the law. The report will also show that during 2013 the department did not receive any racial profiling complaints. The University Park Police Department will continue its educational and training efforts within the department on racial profiling, as recommended by the report, and will continue to perform periodic evaluations of individual officers to assess whether or not an officer is engaging in racial profiling. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that each member review the final report. Should there be any questions or concerns it is requested that the Chief of Police be informed for response. UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT 2013 BIAS-BASED PROFILING ANALYSIS PREPARED BY: Eric J. Fritsch, Ph.D. Chad R. Trulson, Ph.D. University of North Texas Executive Summary Article 2.132 (7) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the annual reporting to the local governing body of data collected on the race or ethnicity of individuals stopped and issued citations or arrested for traffic violations and whether or not those individuals were searched. Since the law provides no clear instruction to a governing body on how to review such data, the University Park Police Department requested this analysis and review to assist the City Council in reviewing the data. The analysis of material and data from the University Park Police Department revealed the following: • A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY BIASED BASED PROFILING 01-001 OUTLINING THE DEPARTMENT’S POLICY CONCERNING RACIAL PROFILING, SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 2.132 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. • A REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION REVEALS THAT THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS LAW ON TRAINING AND EDUCATION REGARDING RACIAL PROFILING. • A REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTATION PRODUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN BOTH PRINT AND ELECTRONIC FORM REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE TEXAS LAW ON THE RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT PROCESS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION ABOUT THE COMPLAINT PROCESS. • ANALYSIS OF THE DATA REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE TEXAS LAW ON THE COLLECTION OF RACIAL PROFILING DATA. • THE ANALYSIS OF STATISTICAL INFORMATION FROM UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT REVEALS THAT THERE ARE NO METHODOLOGICALLY CONCLUSIVE INDICATIONS OF SYSTEMIC RACIAL PROFILING BY THE DEPARTMENT. • THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE TEXAS LAW CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING. • THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE TEXAS LAW CONCERNING THE REPORTING OF INFORMATION TO TCOLE. Introduction This report details an analysis of the University Park Police Department’s policies, training, and statistical information on racial profiling for the year 2013. This report has been prepared to specifically comply with Article 2.132 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) regarding the compilation and analysis of racial profiling data. Specifically, the analysis will address Articles 2.131 – 2.135 of the CCP and make a determination of the level of compliance with those articles by the University Park Police Department in 2013. The full copies of the applicable laws and regulations pertaining to this report are contained in Appendix A. This report is divided into six analytical sections: University Park Police Department’s policy on racial profiling; University Park Police Department’s training and education on racial profiling; University Park Police Department’s complaint process and public education on racial profiling; analysis of statistical data on racial profiling; analysis of University Park Police Department’s compliance with applicable laws on racial profiling; and a final section which includes completed data and information reporting forms required to be sent to TCOLE. For the purposes of this report and analysis, the following definition of racial profiling is used: racial profiling means a law enforcement-initiated action based on an individual's race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than on the individual's behavior or on information identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal activity (Texas CCP Article 3.05). University Park Police Department Policy on Racial Profiling A review of University Park Police Department regulation Biased Based Profiling 01-001 revealed that the department has adopted policies to be in compliance with Article 2.132 of the Texas CCP (see Appendix B). There are seven specific requirements mandated by Article 2.132 that a law enforcement agency must address. All seven are clearly covered in regulation Biased Based Profiling 01-001. University Park Police Department regulations provide clear direction that any form of racial profiling is prohibited and that officers found engaging in inappropriate profiling may be disciplined up to and including termination. The regulations also provide a very clear statement of the agency’s philosophy regarding equal treatment of all persons regardless of race or ethnicity. Appendix C lists the applicable statute and corresponding University Park Police Department regulation. In addition, the University Park Police Department is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies and is in compliance with standards prohibiting bias based profiling which exceed the requirements of the State of Texas. A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT REGULATION BIASED BASED PROFILING 01-001 SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 2.132 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. University Park Police Department Training and Education on Racial Profiling Texas Occupation Code § 1701.253 and § 1701.402 require that curriculum be established and training certificates issued on racial profiling for all Texas Peace officers. Documentation provided by University Park Police Department reveals that racial profiling training and certification did occur in 2013 and was provided to all officers requiring such training. A REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION REVEALS THAT THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS LAW ON TRAINING AND EDUCATION REGARDING RACIAL PROFILING. University Park Police Department Complaint Process and Public Education on Racial Profiling Article 2.132 §(b)3-4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that law enforcement agencies implement a complaint process on racial profiling and that the agency provide public education on the complaint process. University Park Police Department regulation Biased Based Profiling 01-001 Section III Parts B and C covers this requirement. Specifically, the department has information regarding racial profiling and the complaint process on its website and posted inside the police department in the lobby and at the records desk. In addition, the department provides annual information about racial profiling to the local newspaper including specific contact information to file a complaint. A REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTATION PRODUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN BOTH PRINT AND ELECTRONIC FORM REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE TEXAS LAW ON THE RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT PROCESS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION ABOUT THE COMPLAINT PROCESS. University Park Police Department Statistical Data on Racial Profiling Article 2.132(b) 6 requires that law enforcement agencies collect statistical information on traffic stops in which a citation is issued and arrests with specific information on the race of the person cited. In addition, information concerning searches of persons and whether or not the search was based on consent is also required to be collected. University Park Police Department submitted statistical information on all citations in 2013 and accompanying information on the race of the person cited. Accompanying this data was the relevant information on searches. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE TEXAS LAW ON THE COLLECTION OF RACIAL PROFILING DATA. Analysis of the Data The first chart depicts the percentages of people stopped by race in 2013 (3,211 total traffic stops).1 White drivers constituted 83.84 percent of all drivers stopped, whereas Whites constituted 91.00 percent of the city population, 33.10 percent of the county population, and 50.90 percent of the region population.2 African-American drivers constituted 5.29 percent of all drivers stopped, whereas African-Americans constituted 1.00 percent of the city population, 22.30 percent of the county population, and 14.50 percent of the region population. Hispanic drivers constituted 6.63 percent of all drivers stopped, whereas Hispanics constituted 4.00 percent of the city population, 38.30 percent of the county population, and 27.30 percent of the region population. The chart shows that White drivers are stopped at rates lower than the percentage of Whites found in the city population, but higher than their percentage in the county and regional population. African-Americans are stopped at rates higher than the percentage of African- 1 There were 3 citations given where the race/ethnicity of the individual was Native American/Other, and 13 citations of motorists classified as Middle Eastern. The total number of vehicle stops (3,211) is indicative of motorists who received a citation, were arrested, or both. See TCOLE forms in the final section of this report for breakdowns by citations, arrests, or both. 2 City and County population figures were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau utilizing the 2010 Census. Regional population figures are derived from 2010 Census data compiled and published by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. “Regional” population figures are defined as the 16 county Dallas-Ft. Worth Area including the following counties: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Erath, Hood, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Navarro, Palo Pinto, Parker, Rockwall, Somervell, Tarrant, and Wise. White Asian Hispanic African-American % City Population 91.00%2.70%4.00%1.00% % County Population 33.10%5.00%38.30%22.30% % Region Population 50.90%5.20%27.30%14.50% % of Total Stops 83.84%3.74%6.63%5.29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Americans in the city population, but lower than their percentage in the county and regional population. The same finding holds for Hispanic drivers. Easy determinations regarding whether or not University Park officers have “racially profiled" a given motorist are impossible given the nature of the data that has been collected and presented for this report. The law dictates that police agencies compile aggregate-level data regarding the rates at which agencies collectively stop motorists in terms of their race/ethnicity. These aggregated data are to be subsequently analyzed in order to determine whether or not individual officers are “racially profiling" motorists. This methodological error, commonly referred to as the "ecological fallacy," defines the dangers involved in making assertions about individual officer decisions based on the examination of aggregate incident level data. In short, one cannot "prove" that an individual officer has “racially profiled" any individual motorist based on the rate at which a department stops any given group of motorists. This kind of determination necessarily requires an examination of data at the individual officer level for a more detailed analysis of individual officer decision-making. Unfortunately, the law does not currently require the collection of this type of data, resulting in a considerable amount of conjecture as to the substantive meaning of aggregate level disparities. That is, who or what is driving the disproportionate rates at which minorities seem to be stopped and searched? We cannot know or even begin to examine this issue with analyses that end with aggregate level comparisons of rates. Additional interpretation problems remain in regards to the specific measurement of racial "profiling" as defined by Texas state code. For example, officers are currently forced to make subjective determinations regarding an individual's race based on his or her personal observations because the Texas Department of Public Safety does not provide an objectively- based determination of an individual's race/ethnicity on the Texas driver's license. The absence of any verifiable race/ethnicity data on the driver's license is especially troubling given the racial diversity within the North Texas region as a whole, and the large numbers of citizens who are of Hispanic and/or mixed racial decent. The validity of any racial/ethnic disparities discovered in the aggregate level data becomes threatened in direct proportion to the number of subjective "guesses" officers are forced to make when trying to determine an individual's racial/ethnic background. In addition, the data collected for the current report does not allow for an analysis that separates (or disaggregates) the discretionary decisions of officers to stop a motorist from those that are largely non-discretionary. For example, non-discretionary stops of motorists based on the discovery of outstanding warrants should not be analyzed in terms of whether or not "profiling" has occurred simply because the officer who has stopped a motorist as a result of the discovery of an outstanding warrant does not independently make the decision to stop, but rather, is required to stop that individual regardless of any determination of race. An officer cannot be determined to be “racially profiling" when organizational rules and state codes compel them to stop regardless of an individual's race/ethnicity. Straightforward aggregate comparisons of stop rates ignore these realities, and fail to distinguish between discretionary and non-discretionary law enforcement actions. In the future, this validity issue could be lessened by the collection of data indicating the initial reason for the traffic stop, whether it be an observed traffic violation, other criminal activity, the existence of an outstanding warrant, or some other reason. Finally, there has been considerable debate as to what the most appropriate population "base- rate" is in determining whether or not racial/ethnic disparities exist. Questions concerning the most appropriate base-rate are most problematic in the case of traffic stops, because there are problems associated with using any number of different population measures to determine whether or not aggregate level racial disparities exist. As the current analysis shows in regards to the use of city, county, and regional base-rates, the outcome of analyses designed to determine whether or not disparities exist is obviously dependent on which base-rate is used. Changes in the demographic character of North Texas have made the base-rate issue especially problematic because measures derived from the U.S. Census can become quickly outdated. Although the more recent 2010 Census population figures are utilized in this report, these base rates will too become quickly outdated due to the rapid changes experienced in North Texas. Related, the determination of valid stop base-rates becomes multiplied if analyses fail to distinguish between residents and non-residents who are stopped, because the existence of significant proportions of non-resident stops will lead to invalid conclusions if racial/ethnic comparisons are made exclusively to resident population figures. In short, the methodological problems outlined above point to the limited utility of using aggregate level comparisons of the rates at which different racial/ethnic groups are stopped in order to determine whether or not racial profiling exists within a given jurisdiction. The table below reports the summaries for the total number of persons cited and searched subsequent to being stopped by the University Park Police Department for traffic offenses. In addition, the table shows the number of stopped individuals who granted consent to search and those stopped drivers who were arrested pursuant to the stop. Specific to citations, the table shows that roughly 84 percent of all citations were given to White drivers (2,692/3,211), roughly 5 percent of all citations (170) were given to African-American drivers, and roughly 7 percent (213) of all citations were given to Hispanic drivers. Of the 3,211 persons cited by the University Park Police Department in 2013, only 6 motorists were searched and there were no consent searches. Moreover, less than 2 percent of all motorists cited were arrested (48/3,211). Action White African- American Hispanic Asian Other Total Vehicle Stops 2,692 170 213 120 16 3,211 Searches 4 2 0 0 0 6 Consent Searches 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arrests 34 13 0 0 1 48 Asset Forfeitures 0 0 0 0 0 0 Field Contacts 34 12 2 3 0 51 Note: Vehicle stops includes those where a citation was issued, an arrest occurred, or both. Analysis of Racial Profiling Compliance by University Park Police Department The foregoing analysis shows that the University Park Police Department is fully in compliance with all relevant Texas laws concerning racial profiling, including the existence of a formal policy prohibiting racial profiling by its officers, officer training and educational programs, a formalized complaint process, and the collection of data in compliance with the law. Finally, internal records indicate that during 2013 the department did not receive any bias-based/racial profiling complaints. In addition to providing summary reports and analysis of the data collected by the University Park Police Department in 2013, this report also included an extensive presentation of some of the limitations involved in the level of data collection currently required by law and the methodological problems associated with analyzing such data for the University Park Police Department as well as police agencies across Texas. University Park Police Department TCOLE Reporting Forms Partial Exemption Racial Profiling Reporting (Tier 1) Department Name Agency Number Chief Administrator Name Reporting Name Contact Number E-mail Addess University Park Police Department Greg Spradlin Gre~ S~radlin 214 987-5355 gspradlin@uptexas.org Certification to Report 2.132 (Tier I) - Partial Exemption Policy Requlrements (2.132(b) CCP): Each law enforcement agency in this state shall adopt a detailed written policy on racial profiling. The policy must: (1) clearly define acts constituting racial profiling; (2) strictly prohibit peace officers employed by the agency from engaging in racial profiling; (3) implement a process by which an individual may file a complaint with the agency if the individual believes that a peace officer employed by the agency has engaged in racial profiling with respect to the individual; (4) provide public education relating to the agency's complaint process; (5) require appropriate corrective action to be taken against a peace officer employed by the agency who, after an investigation, is shown to have engaged in racial profiling in violation of the agency's policy adopted under this article; (6) require collection of information relating to motor vehicle stops in which a citation is issued and to arrests made as a result of those stops, including information relating to: (A) the race or ethnicity of the individual detained; (B) whether a search was conducted and, if so, whether the individual detained consented to the search; and (C) whether the peace officer knew the race or ethnicity of the individual detained before detaining that individual; and (7) require the chief administrator of the agency, regardless of whether the administrator is elected, employed, or appointed, to submit an annual report of the information collected under Subdivision (6) to: (A) the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education; and (6) the governing body of each county or municipality served by the agency, if the agency is an agency of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of Partial Exemption Racial Profiling Reporting - Tier 1 Page 1 of 4 Partial Exemption Racial Profiling Reporting (Tier I) Video and Audio Equipment Exemption Partial Exemption Claimed by (2.1 35(a) CCP): all cars regularly used for motor vehicle stops are equipped with video camera and transmitter-activated equipment and each motor stop is recorded and the recording of the stop is retained for at least 90 days after the stop. In accordance with 2.135(a)(2) the agency has requested and not received funds8 install the recording equipment I claim this exemption 1-28-1 4 Date Partial Exemption Racial Profiling Reporting -Tier 1 Page 2 of 4 Partial Exemption Racial Profiling Reporting (Tier 1) Option to submit required data by utilizing agency report You must submit your report in PDF format Ele ctronic Submission of data required by 2.132(b)(6) CCP (6) require collection of information relating to motor vehicle stops in which a citation is issued and to arrests made as a result of those stops, including information relating to: (A) the race or ethnicity of the individual detained; (B) whether a search was conducted and, if so, whether the individual detained consented to the search; and (C) whether the peace officer knew the race or ethnicity of the individual detained before detaining that individual; and A This report meets the above requirements * Date 28-// Send entire documents electronically to this website Partial Exemption Racial Profiling Reporting - Tier 1 Page 4 of 4 Appendix A Racial Profiling Statutes and Laws Art. 3.05. RACIAL PROFILING. In this code, "racial profiling" means a law enforcement-initiated action based on an individual's race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than on the individual's behavior or on information identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal activity. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Art. 2.131. RACIAL PROFILING PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not engage in racial profiling. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Art. 2.132. LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON RACIAL PROFILING. (a) In this article: (1) "Law enforcement agency" means an agency of the state, or of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state, that employs peace officers who make motor vehicle stops in the routine performance of the officers' official duties. (2) "Motor vehicle stop" means an occasion in which a peace officer stops a motor vehicle for an alleged violation of a law or ordinance. (3) "Race or ethnicity" means of a particular descent, including Caucasian, African, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or Middle Eastern descent. (b) Each law enforcement agency in this state shall adopt a detailed written policy on racial profiling. The policy must: (1) clearly define acts constituting racial profiling; (2) strictly prohibit peace officers employed by the agency from engaging in racial profiling; (3) implement a process by which an individual may file a complaint with the agency if the individual believes that a peace officer employed by the agency has engaged in racial profiling with respect to the individual; (4) provide public education relating to the agency's complaint process; (5) require appropriate corrective action to be taken against a peace officer employed by the agency who, after an investigation, is shown to have engaged in racial profiling in violation of the agency's policy adopted under this article; (6) require collection of information relating to motor vehicle stops in which a citation is issued and to arrests made as a result of those stops, including information relating to: (A) the race or ethnicity of the individual detained; (B) whether a search was conducted and, if so, whether the individual detained consented to the search; and (C) whether the peace officer knew the race or ethnicity of the individual detained before detaining that individual; and (7) require the chief administrator of the agency, regardless of whether the administrator is elected, employed, or appointed, to submit an annual report of the information collected under Subdivision (6) to: (A) the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education; and (B) the governing body of each county or municipality served by the agency, if the agency is an agency of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state. (c) The data collected as a result of the reporting requirements of this article shall not constitute prima facie evidence of racial profiling. (d) On adoption of a policy under Subsection (b), a law enforcement agency shall examine the feasibility of installing video camera and transmitter-activated equipment in each agency law enforcement motor vehicle regularly used to make motor vehicle stops and transmitter-activated equipment in each agency law enforcement motorcycle regularly used to make motor vehicle stops. If a law enforcement agency installs video or audio equipment as provided by this subsection, the policy adopted by the agency under Subsection (b) must include standards for reviewing video and audio documentation. (e) A report required under Subsection (b)(7) may not include identifying information about a peace officer who makes a motor vehicle stop or about an individual who is stopped or arrested by a peace officer. This subsection does not affect the collection of information as required by a policy under Subsection (b)(6). (f) On the commencement of an investigation by a law enforcement agency of a complaint described by Subsection (b)(3) in which a video or audio recording of the occurrence on which the complaint is based was made, the agency shall promptly provide a copy of the recording to the peace officer who is the subject of the complaint on written request by the officer. (g) On a finding by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education that the chief administrator of a law enforcement agency intentionally failed to submit a report required under Subsection (b)(7), the commission shall begin disciplinary procedures against the chief administrator. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 25, eff. September 1, 2009. Art. 2.133. REPORTS REQUIRED FOR MOTOR VEHICLE STOPS. (a) In this article, "race or ethnicity" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a). (b) A peace officer who stops a motor vehicle for an alleged violation of a law or ordinance shall report to the law enforcement agency that employs the officer information relating to the stop, including: (1) a physical description of any person operating the motor vehicle who is detained as a result of the stop, including: (A) the person's gender; and (B) the person's race or ethnicity, as stated by the person or, if the person does not state the person's race or ethnicity, as determined by the officer to the best of the officer's ability; (2) the initial reason for the stop; (3) whether the officer conducted a search as a result of the stop and, if so, whether the person detained consented to the search; (4) whether any contraband or other evidence was discovered in the course of the search and a description of the contraband or evidence; (5) the reason for the search, including whether: (A) any contraband or other evidence was in plain view; (B) any probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed to perform the search; or (C) the search was performed as a result of the towing of the motor vehicle or the arrest of any person in the motor vehicle; (6) whether the officer made an arrest as a result of the stop or the search, including a statement of whether the arrest was based on a violation of the Penal Code, a violation of a traffic law or ordinance, or an outstanding warrant and a statement of the offense charged; (7) the street address or approximate location of the stop; and (8) whether the officer issued a written warning or a citation as a result of the stop. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 26, eff. September 1, 2009. Art. 2.134. COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED. (a) In this article: (1) "Motor vehicle stop" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a). (2) "Race or ethnicity" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a). (b) A law enforcement agency shall compile and analyze the information contained in each report received by the agency under Article 2.133. Not later than March 1 of each year, each law enforcement agency shall submit a report containing the incident-based data compiled during the previous calendar year to the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education and, if the law enforcement agency is a local law enforcement agency, to the governing body of each county or municipality served by the agency. (c) A report required under Subsection (b) must be submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency, regardless of whether the administrator is elected, employed, or appointed, and must include: (1) a comparative analysis of the information compiled under Article 2.133 to: (A) evaluate and compare the number of motor vehicle stops, within the applicable jurisdiction, of persons who are recognized as racial or ethnic minorities and persons who are not recognized as racial or ethnic minorities; and (B) examine the disposition of motor vehicle stops made by officers employed by the agency, categorized according to the race or ethnicity of the affected persons, as appropriate, including any searches resulting from stops within the applicable jurisdiction; and (2) information relating to each complaint filed with the agency alleging that a peace officer employed by the agency has engaged in racial profiling. (d) A report required under Subsection (b) may not include identifying information about a peace officer who makes a motor vehicle stop or about an individual who is stopped or arrested by a peace officer. This subsection does not affect the reporting of information required under Article 2.133(b)(1). (e) The Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education, in accordance with Section 1701.162, Occupations Code, shall develop guidelines for compiling and reporting information as required by this article. (f) The data collected as a result of the reporting requirements of this article shall not constitute prima facie evidence of racial profiling. (g) On a finding by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education that the chief administrator of a law enforcement agency intentionally failed to submit a report required under Subsection (b), the commission shall begin disciplinary procedures against the chief administrator. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 27, eff. September 1, 2009. Art. 2.135. PARTIAL EXEMPTION FOR AGENCIES USING VIDEO AND AUDIO EQUIPMENT. (a) A peace officer is exempt from the reporting requirement under Article 2.133 and the chief administrator of a law enforcement agency, regardless of whether the administrator is elected, employed, or appointed, is exempt from the compilation, analysis, and reporting requirements under Article 2.134 if: (1) during the calendar year preceding the date that a report under Article 2.134 is required to be submitted: (A) each law enforcement motor vehicle regularly used by an officer employed by the agency to make motor vehicle stops is equipped with video camera and transmitter- activated equipment and each law enforcement motorcycle regularly used to make motor vehicle stops is equipped with transmitter-activated equipment; and (B) each motor vehicle stop made by an officer employed by the agency that is capable of being recorded by video and audio or audio equipment, as appropriate, is recorded by using the equipment; or (2) the governing body of the county or municipality served by the law enforcement agency, in conjunction with the law enforcement agency, certifies to the Department of Public Safety, not later than the date specified by rule by the department, that the law enforcement agency needs funds or video and audio equipment for the purpose of installing video and audio equipment as described by Subsection (a)(1)(A) and the agency does not receive from the state funds or video and audio equipment sufficient, as determined by the department, for the agency to accomplish that purpose. (b) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, a law enforcement agency that is exempt from the requirements under Article 2.134 shall retain the video and audio or audio documentation of each motor vehicle stop for at least 90 days after the date of the stop. If a complaint is filed with the law enforcement agency alleging that a peace officer employed by the agency has engaged in racial profiling with respect to a motor vehicle stop, the agency shall retain the video and audio or audio record of the stop until final disposition of the complaint. (c) This article does not affect the collection or reporting requirements under Article 2.132. (d) In this article, "motor vehicle stop" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a). Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 28, eff. September 1, 2009. Art. 2.136. LIABILITY. A peace officer is not liable for damages arising from an act relating to the collection or reporting of information as required by Article 2.133 or under a policy adopted under Article 2.132. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Art. 2.137. PROVISION OF FUNDING OR EQUIPMENT. (a) The Department of Public Safety shall adopt rules for providing funds or video and audio equipment to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of installing video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A), including specifying criteria to prioritize funding or equipment provided to law enforcement agencies. The criteria may include consideration of tax effort, financial hardship, available revenue, and budget surpluses. The criteria must give priority to: (1) law enforcement agencies that employ peace officers whose primary duty is traffic enforcement; (2) smaller jurisdictions; and (3) municipal and county law enforcement agencies. (b) The Department of Public Safety shall collaborate with an institution of higher education to identify law enforcement agencies that need funds or video and audio equipment for the purpose of installing video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A). The collaboration may include the use of a survey to assist in developing criteria to prioritize funding or equipment provided to law enforcement agencies. (c) To receive funds or video and audio equipment from the state for the purpose of installing video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A), the governing body of a county or municipality, in conjunction with the law enforcement agency serving the county or municipality, shall certify to the Department of Public Safety that the law enforcement agency needs funds or video and audio equipment for that purpose. (d) On receipt of funds or video and audio equipment from the state for the purpose of installing video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A), the governing body of a county or municipality, in conjunction with the law enforcement agency serving the county or municipality, shall certify to the Department of Public Safety that the law enforcement agency has installed video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A) and is using the equipment as required by Article 2.135(a)(1). Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Art. 2.138. RULES. The Department of Public Safety may adopt rules to implement Articles 2.131-2.137. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Art. 2.1385. CIVIL PENALTY. (a) If the chief administrator of a local law enforcement agency intentionally fails to submit the incident-based data as required by Article 2.134, the agency is liable to the state for a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000 for each violation. The attorney general may sue to collect a civil penalty under this subsection. (b) From money appropriated to the agency for the administration of the agency, the executive director of a state law enforcement agency that intentionally fails to submit the incident-based data as required by Article 2.134 shall remit to the comptroller the amount of $1,000 for each violation. (c) Money collected under this article shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the general revenue fund. Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 29, eff. September 1, 2009. Appendix B Appendix C Racial Profiling Laws and Corresponding General Orders and Standard Operating Procedures Texas CCP Article UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT Bias Based Profiling Policy 01-001 2.132(b)1 Section II Part A 2.132(b)2 Section I 2.132(b)3 Section III Part B 2.132(b)4 Section III Part C 2.132(b)5 Section III Part B 2.132(b)6 Section III Part D 2.132(b)7 Section III Part F 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 P:\Agenda Packets\916_City Council_2_18_2014\0002_1_Staff Report.docx 2:53 PM 03/13 AGENDA MEMO 2/18/2014 Agenda TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.; Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Removal of Loading Zone BACKGROUND: Staff has received a number of complaints regarding the “loading zone” on the west side of the street in front of 6719 Hillcrest. The sign was approved in 1995 at the request of the owner of the bicycle shop then located at the subject address. When the shop moved out several years later, removal of the loading zone “fell through the cracks”. At the request of the Police Department, staff surveyed the merchants/property owners along the 6700 block of Hillcrest regarding their opinion of removal of the loading zone. Results of the poll showed 5 in favor of removal and 1 opposed (83.3% of those surveyed were in favor of removal). The merchants/property owners have been notified this item is on the Council agenda for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Given the results of the survey, staff recommends City Council approval of the attached ordinance for removal of the loading zone in front of 6719 Hillcrest. ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING IN EXCESS OF TWO HOURS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 6700 BLOCK OF HILLCREST ADJACENT TO 6719 HILLCREST; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 95/19 AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Ordinance Number 95/19 designated a 10’ by 20’ area on the west side of Hillcrest, adjacent to 6719 Hillcrest, as a fifteen minute loading zone; and WHEREAS, the loading zone is no longer needed or necessary; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful and an offense for any person to leave, stand or park any motor vehicle in excess of two hours on the west side of the 6700 block of Hillcrest, including the spaces adjacent to 6719 Hillcrest designated as a loading zone. SECTION 2. Ordinance 95/19 creating a loading zone adjacent to 6719 Hillcrest, and all other ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. Should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed the sum of two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each offense. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. The parking restrictions set out herein shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice thereof shall have been erected as provided by the Code of Ordinances. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the ___ day of _______________2014. APPROVED: ____________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ ELIZABETH SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/2-11-14/63984) ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING IN EXCESS OF TWO HOURS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 6700 BLOCK OF HILLCREST ADJACENT TO 6719 HILLCREST; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 95/19 AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the ____ day of ______________ 2014. APPROVED: ____________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ CITY SECRETARY 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 P:\Agenda Packets\916_City Council_2_18_2014\0003_1_Staff Report.docx 2:53 PM 03/13 AGENDA MEMO 2/18/2014 Agenda TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.; Director of Public Works SUBJECT: No Parking Request BACKGROUND: As stated in the attached letter, Park Cities Baptist Church is requesting the City to designate the south side of Villanova, west from Tulane to Pickwick, as NO PARKING, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The church owns all but one of the properties along the south side of the street, where cars currently park the length of the block. Removal of the parked cars would create a safer environment for traffic. Pursuant to the request, staff requested the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for City Council consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approval of the ordinance designating the south side of Villanova, west from Tulane to Pickwick, as NO PARKING, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 3900 BLOCK OF VILLANOVA STREET, BETWEEN PICKWICK AND TULANE, BETWEEN 8:00 A. M. AND 6:00 P. M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, EXCEPT SCHOOL HOLIDAYS; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That it shall be unlawful and an offense for any person to leave, stand or park any motor vehicle on the south side of the 3900 block of Villanova Street, between Pickwick and Tulane, from 8:00 a. m. to 6:00 p. m., Monday through Friday, except school holidays. SECTION 2. That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. That any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed the sum of two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each offense. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. The parking restrictions set out herein shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice thereof shall have been erected as provided by the Code of Ordinances. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the ___ day of ___________________ 2014. APPROVED: ____________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ ELIZABETH SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/02-12-14/TM64756) ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 3900 BLOCK OF VILLANOVA STREET, BETWEEN PICKWICK AND TULANE, BETWEEN 8:00 A. M. AND 6:00 P. M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, EXCEPT SCHOOL HOLIDAYS; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the ____ day of ____________________ 2014. APPROVED: ____________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ CITY SECRETARY