The Grays Harbor County Sheriff’s Office has drafted a contract for police services for the City of McCleary, and while citizens are apprehensive with the idea of losing their local police department, the City Council maintains the fiscal state of the city means a change must occur — contract or no — either to services or funding.
Residents of McCleary filled the council chambers recently, urging their council to reject a contract for police services through the Sheriff’s Office, saying the contract offers no guarantees and the expense is worth the services that will be provided.
“It’s by no means on par with what I heard council members indicate it would be,” McCleary resident Brenda Orffer said during the meeting. “The suggestion that our police services be contracted out comes at too high a price to warrant what the savings are supposed to be.”
Orffer said local control of the police department means cuts could be weighed, officials could be held accountable, and discussions could be had about priorities — all things that could be limited if service was passed on to the county.
“That would not be true if the money was simply appropriated to a similarly cash-strapped county government with no real guarantees as to what we would get in return,” she said. “What is to prevent the county, as its budget continues to suffer, from paring back on even the vaguely promised components of this supposed deal?”
The proposed contract offers base-level services to the city, comparable to those provided for unincorporated cities, at a cost of $225,000 per year for 2015 (prorated as of the date when the contract is signed), $225,000 for 2016, and then grows each year after that. For 2017, the city will pay $234,000, in 2018 it would pay $243,360, and services in 2019 will cost $253,094.
City officials highlight the savings the contract would bring to the city, noting that the McCleary Police Department was budgeted at $417,000 for 2015, down from $570,000 in 2014, Councilman Brent Schiller said.
“We’ve already expended 30 percent of (the 2015 budget) and we’re only into March, so we’re already having problems,” Schiller said. “We can keep the city police department, but what level of service is the city willing to accept? That’s the bottom line here.”
If the city accepted the contract with the Sheriff’s Office, base-level services would include a first response for the enforcement of state law, and “limited response” for the city’s adopted municipal, criminal and traffic codes. Patrol services would include reactive patrol for responding to calls, and limited proactive patrol (for prevention) at the discretion of the Sheriff. The Sheriff also will designate an unspecified number of fully commissioned sheriff deputies to patrol the city as part of its regular law enforcement services, which will be under the purview of the Sheriff or command staff. The Sheriff or a designee will attend City Council meetings on a monthly basis to report on criminal and traffic activity in city limits.
The city also would be required to allow the county to convert available vehicles and equipment for the county’s use, with the vehicles and equipment being returned when the contract ends.
Though the contract was unappealing to the residents at the meeting, the council reminded the crowd that the contract is a draft.
“This is a beginning document and we need to write down what we don’t like about it, we need to make a list of items and shoot it back to them,” Councilman Jeff Catterlin said. “The one thing that I agree with is it didn’t list how many hours of patrol — that’s a biggie — and the cars I would just like to see us keep.”
Though the Sheriff’s Office would take over police services, the county would not be on the hook for all of the associated costs. The city would be required to supply any special supplies, such as stationary and citation and infraction books with the city name or seal, and an office space with an internet connection, according to the contract, “for the exclusive use of the county to provide for preparation and storage of sensitive/confidential materials,” and the city would be required to maintain its 911 contract.
Additionally, the city would be required to contract separately for jail space, and court services would need to be contracted through the county. The city also will be responsible for all animal control impoundment costs arising from enforcement of the municipal code.
McCleary resident Chris Vessey asked the city to hold a City Hall meeting to discuss the situation.
“The people of McCleary should be entitled to a city meeting where their questions could be asked and answered,” Vessey said. “This thing here, to me, is not a contract that we, the citizens of McCleary, should have to sign.”
Orffer agreed that discussion should continue.
“I urge you, our city council, to keep our money and our police services at home here in McCleary, and let’s please solve this problem as a community and not outsource it away,” Orffer said.
While the City reviews the contract, not all is lost for the McCleary Police Department. Schiller said he has asked the department to provide a cost estimate for reduced services, and city Attorney Dan Glenn said discussions and negotiations were ongoing with the city’s police department and its union.
Glenn also suggested the city could propose an excess levy to fund the department for one year, which would then require the approval of voters — much like the city of Elma (where Glenn also is city attorney) has discussed doing.
“It’s a very sensitive issue, there’s no question, it’s trying to be as straightforward as it can be and the citizens make the decision,” Glenn said. “That’s a decision that (Elma) will be making, and it’s a decision this council will have to make.”
No action was taken regarding the contract. The council will continue to review the contract and other options. Mayor Gary Dent was not at the meeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment