“A ‘no’ uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a ‘yes’ merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble”
Public Support for the Police Versus Concern for its Costs
Background: It is clear from the fact that nearly 70% of voters were in favor of Measure E, as well as from the preponderance of comments received in response to the recently conducted PVrrg survey, that our Police Department enjoys widespread support among residents. It is also a fact that police costs represent the most significant portion of the City’s budget, and even Measure E does not cover the full cost.
Many voters assumed Measure E’s $5 million tax was sufficient to fully fund the PVE Police Department (PVEPD). Yet the budgeted cost of the PVEPD for the current fiscal year is just over $7 million.
The City Council has formed a Police Department Ad Hoc Committee to address the issue of police costs. Interim Chief of Police Dreiling is heading up efforts to find solutions.
Question: From your point of view, what is the best way to resolve this apparent conflict between public support and cost concerns? What ideas do you have for addressing the police cost issue? Do you see this as an important issue? What steps are you willing to advocate for to solve this long-term financial concern?
Responses:
Gayne Brenneman
“GAYNE BRENNEMAN
”The best way to resolve the conflict is to review the PVrrg Survey, just recently done (and pending), on that exact question. Review the results, and see if the residents will support the current ‘model’, at ‘any cost’? some reasonable cost? Or less cost than the present model?
The police cost issue is complex and involves not just “pay’, but a very large ‘overtime’ component, coupled with incredibly generous ‘benefits’ (health, dental, vision, hearing, etc..) that our city may not be able to afford. Adding to the ‘payroll’, is ‘other misc costs’ that almost equal their overtime costs (37%), plus ? dues and subscriptions? Training? Travel? Books? Subscriptions?
Yes, this as an important issue.
I plan to wait and review our PVE Pension ad hoc committee report, Sept 15, and see, how our budget can be managed, short, and long term, with keeping staff that represent 80% of our current budget, let alone, moving forward, and addressing the ‘unfunded liability’, and future costs.
The residents all expect me to ensure that they have the highest quality policing at a competitive price. I will make sure we have investigated all options for policing from the County and adjoining cities. “”
Sanford Davidson
“SANFORD DAVIDSON (incumbent)
(Councilmember Davidson declined to supply answers to any of the questions posed)”
Dawn Murdock
“DAWN MURDOCK
”Residents need a sustainable solution for our police that is affordable. Our police deserve stability. Residents want the whole story with sustainable options, so the issue does not continue to reoccur every two years.
This requires:
• Transparency of the full cost of running the police department, including pension debt due to CalPERS shortfalls;
• Ensuring the department is efficient and cost-effective. Chief Dreiling is looking at staffing levels, span of control, and efficiencies. He is identifying services that can be outsourced, such as dispatch and jail, to reduce costs and compare to the market rate, while retaining our local police department. Our residents need to know city leadership is vetting options to control costs. I am in full support of his efforts.
• Managed safety services using performance metrics, so people understand how our police services contrast to the County’s, which justifies additional cost. Performance metrics will be proposed by Chief Dreiling.
• Improved pension management. The Pension Committee recommends increasing payments to prevent new debt. The debt is projected to reach $19 million this year, which requires 7% interest payments. In five years, the interest will rise from $1 to $2 million, causing more service crowd-out such as neglected maintenance. I bring creative solutions such as slowing the increase of pensionable benefits to seek alternative compensation approaches that reward employees while not compounding the City’s pension obligations (e.g., contributions to 457/401k accounts).
• Our officers need to know they have our full support and a seat at the table to solve this together.””
Jim Roos
“JIM ROOS
”‘I support keeping our PVE Police Department. Our City enjoys a substantially higher level of service than do neighboring cities that contract with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. While neighboring cities have struggled with serious unsolved crimes, our PVE Police Department stands as a model of community policing.
The City is currently evaluating several models to reduce expenses within the department. I support these efforts and would seek to ensure that any solution prioritizes public safety first.””
Bill Sewell
“BILL SEWELL
”I strongly believe that we should keep our police by making them affordable. The police are not the problem, CalPERS is. I am concerned about cost. Chef Dreiling will present a report in September outlining his task to look for changes in the PD to save costs. The results of his effort will, hopefully, identify some areas for savings, but expectations are that it will not be enough to address the problem.
One idea is to form a Safety District like many cities throughout California have done. This would be a partnership with one or more other cities on the peninsula, headquartered in the current PVE Police Headquarters. We would add several more officers and set up patrols similar to the way they are organized in PVE now while adding additional patrols in the partner city. This change would allow us to create a new independent pension system, increase officer’s salaries, and renegotiate our MOU.
If, as suggested above in the answer to question 2, we could make PVE a charter city, that will also allow us to reduce costs in a similar fashion while keeping the police department that we rely on.
Based on my personal previous experience working with an LASD contract, I would not bring the Sheriff in.””