Nevada City Police Services Benefit in Outsourcing

Additional Recommendations 1

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R2
  publicly review and consider any resulting proposals to determine whether there is an opportunity to provide equal or better police services at lower costs. Responses City Council of Nevada City: Due Date: August 29, 2012 City of Nevada City August 13,2012 The Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Presiding Judge of Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Re: Response of City Council of Nevada City to Grand Jury Report Nevada City Police Services Benefit in Outsourcing Dear Judge Anderson: On behalf of the City Council of Nevada City, I am transmitting to your attention our response to Findings and Recommendations in the 2011-12 Grand Jury report entitled Nevada City Police Services Benefit in Outsourcing. We appreciate the time and effort put forth by the Grand Jury to provide its recommendations for cost savings in our police department in these challenging economic times. However, outsourcing all police functions is a complex matter and, as reflected in the response, the city is exploring other opportunities for sharing police services and cost savings at this time. Yours truly, })ur~~AWJ5 Duane Strawser Mayor cc: Nevada County Civil Grand Jury / Jim Wickham, Police Chief David Brennan, City Manager Hal DeGraw, City Attorney City Hall • 317 Broad Street • Nevada City, California 95959 • (530) 265-2496 1 CITY OF NEVADA CITY RESPONSETO THE FINDINGS AND RECOM M ENDATIONS OF THE 2011-12 2 NEVADA COUNTY GRAND JURY RE PORT NEVADA CITY POLICE SE RVI CES - BENEFIT IN 3 OUTSOURCING 4 FINDINGS 5 F.l.l With no reserves in the General Fund, the City is in a weak financia l position. Th e City agrees with this finding. As with numerous cities nationwide, Nevada City has no unobligated general fund reserves and 8 is constantly reviewing sources of revenue, streamlining its operations w ithout reducing the 9 level of service. In recent years, the general fund has experienced improvements in financial 10 position. The City Council has approved placing a three-eighths cent sales tax on the November 11 ballot to help restore th e general fund to an appropriate reserve balance over a five year 12 period. F.1.2 The Grass Valley Police Department proposal indicated they could have maintained the 14 current or a higher level of police services and realized an annual cost savings in the amount of 15 $300,000. The City pa rtially agrees with this findi ng: 17 The Grass Valley proposal was a legitimate, cost effective, use of available resources. The 18 proposal eliminated supervisory and management positions within NCPD and consolidated 19 other activities. However, further an alysis of the proposal would be necessary to support the 20 statement that it would maintain the cu rrent level of service utilizing GVPD current supervisory 21 and management personnel. F.1.3 Assembly Bill 1028 may limit the ability of the City to continue to fill key positions with 23 CalPERS retirees. The City agrees with this finding. The City agrees that in the best interest of the Police Department, a full-time Police Chief would 26 better serve the community and department. The salient point is that filling the Police Chief 27 position on a part time basis is not a desirable organizational structure and the City is working 28 toward having the financial ability to hire a full time Police Chief. F. 1.4 Currently, th e City is attempting to balance the budget, in part, by instituting Friday 30 furloughs, hiring key part-time leaders an d failing to put aside funds in the City's General Fund 31 reserve. The City agrees w ith this finding. As with many small cities in the Nation, the City Council has taken immediate steps in ensure 34 the health, safety and welfare of its residents during the economic downturn. The City has 35 taken the opportunely to hire part-time managers, with a high level of experience and service 36 levels, to assist Council through these economic conditions. F.I.S The Council did not meet its fiduciary duty when it failed to consider outsourcing police 38 services. The City strongly disagrees with this finding. The City Council took the initiative to look at all options to maintain city financial stability 41 including considering options for outsourcing police services. This option was not generated by 42 any Grand Jury Report, community outcry to outsource the police department, but by the City 43 Council taking its fiduciary duty seriously. There are many other factors to consider besides 44 saving money when evaluating such a significant restructuring of city services. The 45 consideration of outsourcing police services has resulted in the Nevada City Police Department 46 working closer with Grass Valley Police Department. The two cities have been actively 47 exploring opportunities for sharing resources that would reduce expenditures and enhance 48 services, 49 RECOMMENDATIONS 50 R.l lnvestigate outsourcing police services. Possible providers would include the Nevada County 51 Sheriff's Office and/or Grass Valley Police Departm ent. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The recommendation is not warranted for reasons that there is no perceived public support for 54 it and the fiscal issue is being addressed in other w ays on multiple fro nts. At the June 5, 2012, 55 City Council meeting the Police Chief had a public discussion on the Grand Jury report and 56 received public comments on the direction on whether the City Council wanted further 57 research on outsourcing police services. The Chief highlighted some of t he critical elements that 58 would need to be analyzed and the significant costs and staff tim e to address those iss ues. The 59 Council reiterated they would prefer the current direction the Departm ent was taking as they · 60 also recognized to reverse and directed staff to work with the City Manager to meet those 61 objectives. The Nevada City Police Department will continue to explore opportunities for 62 sharing police services which we believe will serve to improve our ability to provide community 63 policing. The Nevada City Police Chief is working closely with Grass Valley Police Department in 65 developing a Joint Operational Agreement (JOA) to cover dispatch, supervision, and share 66 investigative services, evidence and school resource officers. This type of arrangement 67 eventua lly leads to a higher level of service to the communities, elimination of duplicated 68 services and a cost savings for both communities. We believe the current efforts will achieve the same beneficial results without losing our local 70 police services operations which is highly desirable in Nevada City. R.2. Publicly review and consider any resulting proposals to determine whether there is an 72 opportunity to provide equal or better police services at lower costs. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. We don't foresee receiving any "resulting proposals" because we will not be soliciting any full 75 service outsourcing proposals. The City Council is mostly concerned with providing a high quality public safety program and 77 has directed staff to carry out that objective. The financial status of Nevada City continues to be 78 of paramount concern and we are moving forward on that ch allenge. As a small municipality we keep a focus on bala ncing the local services expected by our 80 residents and the costs to provide that level of service. 81