LTC 125-2010 Annual Noise Report (July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009)m MIAMIBEACH
k~r ~..~~I ii";
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO. LTC # its-ZOio LETTER TQ'C~1vlI+f11S~~b
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Managers
.,~-
DATE: April 26, 2010 ~ '_
SUBJECT: Annual Noise Report (July 1, 2008 -June 30, 2009)
This Letter to Commission is intended to provide the report on the implementation of the City's
Noise Ordinance, as amended in July, 2008, and as required pursuant to the Administrative
Guidelines adopted via resolution on that date. Data for noise reports is collected by calendar
year quarters, and includes the information required by the Administrative Guidelines as
approved on October 7, 2008.
BACKGROUND
The attached report includes data from July, 2008 (03-08) through June, 2009 (02-09). All of
the reporting data required by the Administrative Guidelines is presented in table form
(Attachment A). As commercial noise appears to be the area of most interest, and that which
has garnered the most attention and discussion, and as a result of discussions with the
Stakeholders and discussions at the Land Use and Development Committee (LUDC), data for
commercial cases only has also been analyzed and is reported in the same format as the
annual report (Attachment B). The LUDC discussed the Q4-08 and Q1-09 noise reports at their
July 27, 2009 meeting. At that meeting, additional data was requested by the Committee; that
data is included as Attachment C. In addition, preliminary yearly data was shared and
discussed at a meeting with the Stakeholders
A summary of the annual data, commercial annual data and additional information is provided
in this report, and portions of the report are further analyzed for your information.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REPORTED
Through the course of the year, noise enforcement and reporting continued to improve based
on input from the Stakeholders, and examination of noise data by staff. These improvements
and modifications are described below.
^ Beginning with Q1-09, reports are being produced that detail the time elapsed from
when the dispatcher receives a noise complaint call and the time of arrival by a Code
Officer.
^ During the Q2-09, further improvements to capture the time from call receipt to arrival
were implemented.
^ During Q1-09, a flag was established to indicate that a call was routed to PD which
makes it easier to segregate calls handled by Code from those handled by PD.
^ Beginning with Q2-09, a chart depicting why a complaint was deemed "non-valid" was
included in the quarterly report. While this information had been captured, and was
included in the narrative in previous reports, it has now been incorporated into the actual
report charts. Effective with Q3-09, this reporting has been automated by requiring code
officers to make an entry into a drop down box identifying why a complaint was deemed
"non-valid." Included in this drop down menu is a distinction whether there was no noise
at the time of the officer's arrival, or if the noise was audible but not a violation. A chart
containing data for the year is attached as Attachment D.
^ An additional data field was added in order to identify whether the "before 11 p or after
11 p" standard was used.
^ During Q2-09, changes were also made to the manner in which canceled and voided
cases are reflected for reporting purposes. In reviewing the reports, it was determined
that both canceled and void calls were included in the "non valid" disposition. While it
was not a significant number, it is important that they be classified and noted correctly.
As such, beginning with the 02-09, report, call canceled and void cases were not
counted as "non valid." Cancelled calls will be considered as part of the total number of
calls received/cases created for the quarter. Since voids are cases that should have
never been created they will not be counted in the total number of cases in the future.
Improved use of the cancelled/void status began in Q2-09 and those cases were
identified for quarterly report so as not to be counted as "non-valid". Since historically
Code Officers used the terms void, "non-valid", and cancel interchangeably it is difficult
to determine how many of the "non-valid" cases in past quarters should not have been
counted as "non-valid." More specifically:
^ Canceled means the complainant called back and canceled the call prior to the
Code Officer arriving and making an assessment. In some instances, the caller
reports that the noise has stopped. As a result, since the officer did not arrive,
there was no determination of whether or not the complaint was or wasn't valid.
Since every noise complaint results in a noise case being opened, it is important
that we reflect a disposition for each case opened. "Canceled" was added to the
drop down box for the Code Officer as an additional disposition; moving forward,
"canceled" will be considered a disposition, in addition to valid or non-valid.
^ "Voids" are cases that should have never been created, such as the duplicate
entering of the same case. Including the voids not only inadvertently increases
the total number of cases opened, but also incorrectly lists the duplicate case as
"not valid" -even on occasions where the correctly entered case may have been
valid.
During the preparation of the yearly report, staff identified and addressed two additional issues
involving establishment type. One was the use of "Other" and the second was the use of
"Condo/Hotel" as establishment types. The number of establishment types listed as "other"
raised a concern that this category was being overused and not assigned correctly. While this
does not affect the valid/non valid dispositions, for purposes of reviewing trends, it is useful to
have the noise cases categorized as accurately as possible by establishment type. "Other"
should be used for cases relating to noise on public property (beach, street, sidewalk, parks,
etc.), gyms, the band shell, etc., or for a "non-valid" case where the origination of the noise that
caused the complaint was never identified. Code Officers were assigned to review all the
"Others" for the last year and instructed to make the best determination of establishment type.
Training was provided to the Code Officers on this issue. In addition, "Other" is now
categorized as a separate establishment type as opposed to automatically being considered
commercial so that there is a more accurate representation of the various residential and
commercial establishments. This modification helps staff identify more accurately the real
numbers of cases opened for various commercial establishments and residential
establishments.
The second category adjustment was relating to the assignment of Condo, Hotel and Condo-
Hotel. In preparing the maps requested by the Land Use Committee, it appeared that these
classifications were being intermingled. Sorting these is especially important as Hotel and
Condo/Hotel are commercial establishment types, while a Condo is a residential establishment
type. Staff reviewed the condo, condo/hotel and hotel cases for the past year and re-examined,
and reassigned as necessary, all Condo/Hotels. This again provides a more accurate
accounting of what is residential and what is commercial. A list of Condo/Hotels has been
developed to assist officers in making proper identification. Due to these examinations and
reassignments, the yearly report numbers for establishment types will not correspond to the
numbers on the quarterly reports previously distributed.
The LUDC also requested that we develop a process to allow us to capture information on
occasions where there are multiple calls about the same noise complaint. Currently, when a
second or subsequent call is received by dispatch about a case that has already been opened,
dispatch provides the second and subsequent caller with the Noise Complaint Case Number
opened with the first call. A new checkbox has been created to reflect that there was an
additional call about the same complaint. The checkbox is marked by the Administrator to
ensure that the notes on the case reflect the multiple calls made on the complaint.
Through the above listed refinements in procedure and data collection the Code Compliance
Division continues to improve enforcement of the Noise Ordinance, the accuracy of noise
reporting data, and the identification of areas needing additional training (such as correct
identification of establishment types and accuracy of time of arrival, proper identification of
condo/hotels etc.
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL REPORT DATA
As previously noted, Attachment A to this report provides the overall data for the year that
includes quarter three and four of 2008, and quarter one and two of 2009. As reflected, a total
of 3,414 noise cases were opened during the reporting period. Complaints were made for
3,266 of those cases opened, and 3,357 cases had a disposition of valid/non-valid, with 35
cases closed with a disposition of "cancelled."
Consistent with prior experience on noise issues, the majority, in this case 71%, of the 3,357
noise cases opened were residential noise cases, of which 58.3% were noise cases for
apartments; noise cases for apartments also represent 41 % of all noise cases opened in the
City during this reporting period. The establishment types with the second and third highest
number of cases opened was condos (19%) and homes (10%). Loud Music continued to be the
noise type that generated the most noise cases, with 88% of all noise cases opened for this
noise type.
The following three charts reflect the noise cases opened by quarter for the reporting period.
Chart A reflects the four quarters that comprise this reporting period. As noted, the most cases
opened occurred in Quarter 1 of 2009, which coincides with New Year's Eve and Winter Music
Conference. A comparison between residential and commercial noise cases opened is
provided in Chart B. As you can see, cases open appear to follow the same quarterly trend.
The final chart (Chart C) provides a comparison of all quarters of noise reports. This chart
provides a very visual look at the trends that we experience relating to noise. For the most
part, noise periods in the City follow these trends, with the peaks occurring between October
and March (4th quarter and 1St quarter).
ANNUAL REPORT (Q3/08 - Q2/09)
ALL NOISE CASES OPENED BY QUARTER
iwo
v
m
c imo
d
a
O
CHART A ~ ~°
0
d ,°°
a
c
Z soo
3°0
°°°
,oo
s°°
CHART B aoo
300
z°°
~°°
0
Q3108
1089
Q4/08 X1/09
693
Q2109
O~
0 00 O~' O°j
0
0
0 i
ry
o`~ ry
ry
ry
a°` p^" o~ tResidential
t Commercial
Total Cases Opened (by Quarter)
1200
1089
1100
i 1072 1000
1000
895
900
CHART C
a00 873 784
~2oos
632 739
6
700 9
+ 2007
662 726
600 599 -~ 2008
500
- 637 485 X2009
400 --
434
300 -
200
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Residential vs. Commercial
(Annual Data Q3-2008 thru Q2-2009 By Quarter)
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL REPORT DATA -COMMERCIAL CASES
As the majority of the discussion has centered on the impact of commercial noise cases, this
summary focuses on the results for the past year as it relates to noise complaint cases for
commercial establishments (please refer to Attachment B). Commercial, as used in the report,
includes cases opened for noise complaints for: bars, clubs, hotels, condo/hotels, restaurants,
retail and construction sites for commercial establishments.
Of the 3,357 cases with avalid/non-valid disposition, a total of 715 were commercial cases. In
short: only 21% of ALL noise cases opened in the reporting period were commercial noise
cases.
Of the 715 noise cases, 97 cases (14%) were either initiated by Code or police, with the
balance the result of a complaint call. The final disposition for those cases reflect that
^ 31% of all (combined) commercial cases were closed as valid (223), with the balance,
492, deemed "non-valid" at the time of the code officer's arrival (by comparison, only
15% of residential noise cases were closed as valid).
^ Within individual commercial establishment types, the percentage of cases closed as
valid varied. For example,
0 40% of noise complaints for bars were closed as valid, and
0 38% of cases for clubs were closed as valid.
o Commercial construction has a high validity rate, with 86% of the cases opened
closed as valid; this is in large part due to the fact that the construction is typically
still occurring when the officer arrives.
o Retail and condo/hotel establishments both had 25% of their cases closed as
valid, with cases at restaurants (26%) and hotels (29%) resulting in a slightly
higher percentage of cases closed as valid.
The chart below breaks down the commercial cases opened by establishment types. As noted,
the largest percentage of commercial cases opened was for hotels, followed by restaurants.
Commercial Establishment Types
(Q3-2008 through Q2-2009)
Retail
6%
Perhaps not surprisingly for commercial noise complaints, loud music accounts for 89.9% of
the noise type noted for commercial cases opened, yet only 2% of commercial cases opened
are for live entertainment. Of cases with that noise type (loud music), 30.5% were deemed
valid. A total of 41 % of all commercial cases were opened on Friday (19%) or Saturday (22%),
with 57% of the commercial cases opened for noise complaints occurring from 11 pm to 6:59
am. For commercial complaints, 37.4% were anonymous; by comparison, 46.6% of residential
noise complaints were anonymous.
As requested by the Land Use Committee, maps detailing the location of commercial noise
cases (valid and non valid and for each quarter) were prepared and are provided as
Attachment E.
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION
The annual report for Q3/08 to Q2/09 reflects a consistent trend relating to noise cases in the
City of Miami Beach. As reflected, the City continues to experience the largest number of noise
cases being opened for residential noise. The data also reflects that commercial noise cases
have a higher percentage of valid dispositions than residential noise cases.
As previously noted, the Stakeholders met on August 27, 2009 to review the preliminary yearly
data. There was agreement that the noise ordinance as written does not appear to need a
modification at this time, and that the focus should be on refining implementation. The lack of
any current noise "hot spots" appeared to indicate to the group that the noise ordinance was
achieving its goal. During the meeting several suggestions were proffered to further improve
enforcement of the Noise Ordinance, as previously delineated.
While there are occasional issues relating to one or two locations (typically commercial) that
prompt noise complaints, there is no data that appears to demonstrate that noise is a
widespread issue throughout the City. In fact, most of the discussion has centered on
commercial noise complaints, although they represent less than a quarter of all noise cases
opened. This is further supported by the 2009 Community Satisfaction Survey, which was
conducted during the second half of this reporting period.
H:\Other Departments\Code Compliance\NoiseV\nnual Noise Report FINAL.doc
Q
2
W
2
U
Q
H
a'
O
a
w
J
Q
Z
Z
Q
W
U
Z
Q
Z
0
'W'^^
V!
0
Z
rn
0
N
c~
m
0
O
N
m
N
t~D
O
o_
ry~
V_
N
r
_0
O
at ~'
N
~ N Nl Cl
II II
G G
O O
~N N
O O
a n
N N_
Q
3 ~
d ~
N ~
U o
2
m v
d
m
Q
d
c
D
d
m
d
3
N
N
N
N
0
m
U
d
U
0
d
OI N
d
~
o
0
o
e
C
d ~
m m
m I~
m N
eD
y d
~U
'~
~ a
a
C
O
Z ~
N
a w r m of v
E d
~U N Q N N
Z
d
rn~
~
N
d
uU v
~ v
c~
~
a d O
a
m
~
`o
N
d
d
N I~
~ M
~
N
" N
u
E `
°
~U °
i
Z
O
O
m
~ m ? a = o 0
N
d
R d U 9 7
~ - d
d Q ~ r N m
• ~ a
O
f O
N
d d r N m m
E d N n N C~j
~ U
m
ti
m
_ ~
~ `
d
°' E
r
Q U O
E
U
c
U
N
m
`p d
N ~
~. 4
~e
D ~
~U u
a
~ O ~
~ U
U d N
n = m
o
n ~ N
j U D
d m
n m
ti
~~ E
c~
`0 S
`c w n
°i E
r
T U O
0
d
Ol N
d
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o e
y d U m c0 m W I~ ~ m f~ n r ~ m
d
U ~
C
a
.q
~
C O
N
G
Z d d
E q M
N O
V
r (D
N m
V N
N c7
N N
N O
O O
n a
~
~ V H
Z
d
a~
q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a
N
V V ~
~ O
O m
(") I~
~ h
N O
(") M
~ (O
N N
N A
N (p O
m ~ J
~
U a °
a_
m c
m
> ~
d N V (")
~ Cl
v ~ N ~ N
n N
o O
~
~ m N
;
E d ~ ~ o
~ U
Z
O ~
d ~ o
3 A m° = o o =° ~ ~ o 0 0 0
~ ~ IJ 9~ y N M m N O m N ~ I~ Q
ry Q
d
v
J j
a -
F V 9
O
m
m
~ d~~ ro N V N (O m O
r O
r N
d C (~ m .- m m M N ~ N M
~ N Z
Z U
Nf
m
ti
O
~
O
_ Q
~ U
O ~ ~
I-
a d'
¢ ~
~ Z
O ~
O ~
O S
~ ~
w F
w F
0 Z
0
Q Rl U U U S O d' CL S U
M 0
N 0
N 0
M 0
fD 0
O 0
N ° e
O N
O
y W f~ (O W OJ W W
U
a
.~
c
Z
~
M
N
N
~
N
~ V
N ~ M N (O ~ N
o
W a
c0 o
t0 0
V o
O a
aD o e
O E
O
~ Yl
N ~ N M ~ N "
U
a
.~
7 N
M
N
M
N M
N Q
' N
O
N b
0 0 0 o e o 0
W
W ~ O ~ W N O
• N
• a
0
f
N
OQi
N
W
~
W
M O
N
~ 1
~ ~
H
M
~
z ~
!'g
w
~
f
°.
a
~ c~ w
cn 0
-
U ~
U
y ~ w p O
Z
T
r ~
~ F
z (~
z
o ~
~ ~
?
d
ur
0
2 O
S
0
~ w
W
>
~ Y
~
¢
m 2i
O
~
0 (n
Z
O
0 ~
w
S
~
0 Y
Z
O
S
`o c
`
m ~ o
o
°i
~ d m m
'
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
o
e
o
e
O 3
N .R. j 0 0 ~ N t0 N h O W N N N M V
O O U t
d
`~ L
N
a ° o
z
a o
a z
Z O N (O N W O N ~ V N t0 N W O N ~
O
2
O1
C Ot
C Ol
C
o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 o a o 0 0 0 0
O
y
y
N
N
(O
~
R
N
O M
M O
O M
V N
(O O
I~ W
~ N
V 1~
N
O W
Q r
p N
N r
R N
(p OJ
N M
O N
N
w 01 W m w Ol
c
~ c
~
'E c
~ c
c . A
A O
O1 O O O
°1
i E
v n E v
i E
~ r
h Q1
O N
A V
O N
Rl f0
I~ M
N ~
n ~
'
eN-
~
N
V
~ Q
~
O W
V
M b O)
M N
M W
(O O
(O
~ M
(O
N N
t0
M M
N
~ ~
a
O, ~ N M R N ~ O, 6
0 o a o 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0
O O
N N M
V h
M O
O M
ul y
O I~
(O O
IO r
N N
M O
M ~
V N
~ M
V J I~
V A
V M
V N
V r
M O
< V
N O
O
a N Q O. Q O.
Ol
N
c N
'
~ N
o
z
m
~`
N
(O
N
t0
N
1~
(O
r
~
m
0
N
V m
~
N
N
M
N
O
r
V
1~
H m
~`
W
M
CO
M
~
V
N
h
W
(D
~
N
(D
N
W
H
N M N
J
7
0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o a o
O O ~ N OJ N h W r m N M V B O N N I~ N N
0 f
I~
N N
N O
OJ r
O
O ~ h
O N
M t0
M O
Q O
M OJ
W ~
V N
O~ Q
W N
~ ~
W N
W (O
N m
M O
~O M
N ~
N ~
r
M M M V (O OJ ~l] M O N N M M V f0 V N
N
' N H
m m m
~ ~
m
(~
N
N m
N
N
N
T
O m
N
N
N
~
o "O
j C
~ N
a ~ N
° ~
o N
"O
? C
~ N
a ~
~ N
-OC ~
o "O
j C
~ N
a ~O
~ (O
c
> L ~ ` > L i ` > L ( f
F > F W (n (n L F > F l (n (n C F > H W n n
M
R e
N e
O
C
d
C
~
O
~
N ~
OJ
~
N
N
~
L m
0 e
M a
M
N
O
2
O
7' r
~
I~
T
N
" W
N
<
O
M
^
O!
W
a
a
'o o e e
a a
c
0
.~ e a
E
~
~ c
M
m
r
~ e
m.
~
-;n
m
m
~
m a
a
c
O
U
u
9 e
e
o
o r
U i r m
t
d
3 V
N q
E
o
T
C
N (O
~ E
N O T
I M O
N N
~ r
N
~ O
C
Q
C
A
C
N
e
N o
e
f
a
N
6
E
0
U M O O
N
J
O
E
N T
N
~
O O
r
O
~ ~ N N ~ M O~ N ~ ~
O
a
Y!
C 0
W 0
N
W
n
E
0
U
'
~ O
~ F
1 N
0 1~
N
C') M
N
N
M N
r r
O N
m
O M
M
N r
M
N N ty
m
0
0
N
V
_T
'~
W
2
cW
C_
U
ti
Q
~-
O
N
~'
C
Q
v
Q~
O
N
m
N_
O
J
a_
U
W
C~
G
0
U
0
N
_~
N
Q
Z
c_ ~
`° a > m
d ~ 'y r
V N ~
O ~
U
a
o ~
d N
o `-° m
U 'c
N
d
J
d
C
d
a
O
y n
A
U
r
H
O
U
C
O
U
w
C
G
W
N
m
d
a
0
U
d
O
d
2
d
U
a`0o
u
m
.`
d
0
U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
co N
co ~
n V
r ~
~
~ V
~ Ot
o
m
C
O
~
I~
V ~
N
M O
~
~ N
~
0 0 0 0 0 0 o e
O
V W
M u7
N t0
N ~
N 07
N (O
W
M
N
M
M M
V LL~
~ M
V O
~
I~ M
N
N
N
~ ~ r
o ~ ~O ~ N n
w
d
c
O
'
w ~ g
~ O
J O ~ U
O ~
J ~
o Q J H
v~
~ m
m z ~
<n a
F- w
~ z
m O w w 0 0
U ~ ~
d o
O v
I~ o o
M o
M ~
~ o
Oi
N
m
U ~ v O co co a ~
.~
C
O
Z f~
~
I~
O
N r
N
O N
~
0
O 0
M 0 0
W 0
1~ 0 0
r
N
d M ~fl O M M O M
N
m
U
'O
.
~
~
~
aD
O
M
O
O
N
N
N
~
~
o
m
~
co
n
G
H
N
v
H
N Z
w
~ ~
Z
Z
N _
Q (~ w ~
'o
U
~
O
~ _
~
Z ~
N
~ w
F
(~ Z ~
'
~
Z
Z
~ ~
p
w
Y
~ H
N CC
w
Z _
o ? S
I S '
~ m iO
0
0
N
O
_T
M
R r Y
L
"' C d
t9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E N O O) O M ~ O) N M
~ N
w ~
O ~ 1p
e V ~
O
0 0
O 0
N 0 0 0 0
~
~ O ~ M f~ O
O
Z
O
Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v
O
01
C
C
O o 0 o e o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o e
w 07 t~
a O
~ 10
V M
LL~ (O
~ V
~ S
M O
lp -
w ~ ~
N V
~ ~
~ N
~ O
~ N
~ O
~
O
C
O '~
m w C
O •C
O N p
~ ~ ~ E
io
O. O
M
M M
~ 10
~ t0
r I~
N M
M ~
~ ~
6
M
I~ ~ M M M ~
M
~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e
G I~
V O
V M
V ~
M ~
V O)
M
~O N
~
G 10
I~ (O
~ 10
V' M
N O
M N
< O
<O T
M
N ~
O p
~
r
O
~
CO
M
N
W
O ~
n
O)
O)
m
0)
r
~
O
CO
M N ~ M t0 (O V M ~ N ~ OO
W
t7
V
m
N
m
t0
m
~
°
~
~
tJ
~
1f1
rn
~
n N
R
N
O
~
O
N
O
a
tD
lp
O
tp
O
N
M
N
H ~
Vi y
r `~,
t6 tp
m -f6o ~ -OO ~ m O m 'too °> -O -190 m
~ 9) ~ J -O `
J -6
O 3
H O
~ L
F- LL t0
(n J
U7 Q
~ 0
~ H ~ H LL (n (n
Ill
Q
U
J
Q
Z
O
Z
Z
a
0
J
Q
0 0
M 0
10 0
n 0 0 o e
~O ~ ,n ~ m N
O
Z
O
Z ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ V r
O
D1
C
O o 0 0 0 o e o 0
~ N
~ N
~ M
V W
M (O
V N
10
M IA
~
171
.
O C
C
t0
O
m
u
i E
a I~
N V
N N
M V
N t0
M M
10 M
N O
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C O
V 10
M M
C t0
a O)
V I~
M
10 M
V
O
1A
O
N
n
t0
N
O)
D)
n
O
N
N ~ M N M M M N
f/1
i N
~ tp
v In
r ~
m Of
n
° In
n N
~
~
H
v
t0
N
~ N
-N p~
-C .0
~
N -190 T
-O
O p
N
J
-0 J
~ >
> H LL ~ ~
O
J
Z
O
Z
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
I~ M
00 I~
M r
r ~
M 01
fD
'O
.~
C
O
Z ~ O ~ M
N sT
0 0 0 0 o e
N I~
~ M
M M
N N
t0
M
• ~
f~
10 O
~ V
N
1A M
(O M
N
•
~
° 0
N
°
~
M O M ~ r
N
_
• ~
O
H
t00 O
O N O
M n
O r
N N 1~
a '~
m
E
U
(0
C ~ ~
• ~ j -0 0
t o
` U
3 a o
• N
~ t/1
J O
c 0
O
O
- 'a
N d
~.
E E ~
t
C
O
C
O
N
C o
Z m
C
~
~~ ~
Q Q U Z
ATTACHMENT C
ALL CASES 7A - 10:59P 11:OOP - 6:59A
Time"* ALL ALL ALL
h:mm:ss
CASES VALID NON-VALID
CASES VALID NON-VALID
CASES VALID NON-VALID
Average from
Time Called in
to Arrival (COM
onl 0:22:53 0:21:33 0:23:14 0:24:06 0:21:48 0:24:06 0:22:16 0:21:23 0:22:31
Average from
Time Called in
to Arrival (COM
and RES 0:26:42 0:26:56 0:28:03 0:24:20 0:27:20 0:24:39 0:28:03 0:24:04 0:28:49
"Times are for 01-2009
and Q2-2009 only AND
do not include cases
handled by Police Dept.
ATTACHMENT D
rn
0
0 0
J o
`Q M
/ ~
1 ~
Z .'
O ~
O
Z~
N
2 T
'^~
V/ ~
d
O O
'^ w
Q ~
J
~W ~
LY Z
Z
Q
Valid Commerical Q3 2008
-~ .
~.
Norse Complaints Commerdal Locations ~ -- -~~
a ~n ~P 11
+_
f r >
~ rF
* e~t'~. ytF r~ W~ ~.
r M 1~ x „f'6'.
p L,~~,~ fP:
f ~
e ~ ,y~ w
4
r p~ i * r~
fry'` # t~
/'~'~;7r ~~ .. ~
e ~'t~um ~,,. r`ef' ~F,~,.'.
'' +F t5
,~`{' ~.~
's~Rp*1F ... ;
._ m.e,.
i ~ g!~`E
F?^e
...-,... ..__.. _. i
t~ ~i ~ t
~ ~t~ 5T}:
xi,
ft '2" J.a.+ sv~4. ".
k~ M C .ems",.
v e
a
v.. 34§, i:~~ tk::i ,.
L"~' ~ x
.•rn r" i
Y ~,
t ¢¢
1j~R TjA ~.^A;~ .. ~e a ~ ~.~~r. 5~ C .,
z h'"u tr t vd. .. ~;
~t t~'h<[sY.
t
~~ F~
x 7"
~•p!*A
~S~"
Valid Commerical Q4 2008
Noise Complaints Commercial Lc
µ~k
1 Ya
~ yy~y~ ~~ ~e.
~1
r' ~
~
{.
.f~
T
i
t
.'}_.. i.. S
V 1
Ti r``._¢ ~t
.
°(~ L
Y *€
t
~~~ 1~ ~~ L
4 X
~.
~4
Valid Commerical Q1 2009
Valid Commerical Q2 2009
Non-Valid Commerical Q3 2008
Non-Valid Commerical Q4 2008
Non-Valid Commerical Q1 2~~q
Non-Valid Commerical Q2 2009
Noise Complaints Commercial Locations
~~r.~
1
e~ i-~a ~~
r ~ ~ ~
~~
~,.
r
r,~.
~`~ ~ _, '
~v,
~:
~'.~A
~n ! 94y •~ ~. ~
Y 341
~ .,.
t
~,~""~ar~,.
u