Approved 9/15/05
LAW ENFORCEMENT
August 25, 2005
Minutes
Members Present: Debbie DeLeon, Deb Nolan, Dale Copedge, Marc Thomas, Randy Schafer, Don Vickers and Board Chairperson Mark Grebner
Members Absent: None
Others Present: John Neilsen, Matthew Myers, Gene Wriggelsworth, Vicki Harrison, Dan Minzy, Scott Everett, Ann Prater, Steve Prater, John Elsinga and Evan Hope
The Special meeting was called to order by Chairperson DeLeon at 6:04 p.m. in the Personnel Conference Room of the Human Services Building, 5303 S. Cedar, Lansing.
Additions to the Agenda
1. Additional Information
Limited Public Comment
Mr. Myers updated the Committee regarding an incident which occurred at the Lake Lansing Park. An elderly gentleman had a heart attack. CPR was performed on the person and he was then transferred to Sparrow Hospital. Mr. Myers stated the gentleman was fine when he lasted checked with the Hospital.
1. Discussion with Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office Administration on their Experiences with Road Patrol Contracting
Mr. Minzy, Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office, spoke regarding their methodology for contracting for police services. Since 2000, area townships and cities can contract with the Sheriff’s Office for police services. The Board subsidizes these contracts at a rate of .5 mills. Mr. Minzy further explained that the costs for providing these services have been higher than anticipated. The higher costs resulted in a higher subsidization rate than originally anticipated.
The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners established a committee of elected officials and County staff to examine the issue of the higher than anticipated costs. The examination resulted in the annual percentage cost increase to the contracting jurisdictions. However, the County will continue to subsidize at an amount greater than the original commitment of .5 mills. There is an expectation that the subsidy will return to this level by 2008.
Mr. Minzy stated a portion of every resident’s tax dollars essentially goes into a pool to support the police services. The pool lowers the cost of the services so that the cost of a “police service unit” becomes lower. A “police service unit” equates to one person on patrol plus supervision, equipment, training, etc. Jurisdictions purchase units according to what they perceive their need to be. Only jurisdictions who purchase units receive patrol time.
The Washtenaw County Board commits .5 mills of revenue countywide. It does not commit the costs to equate to that revenue. Ann Arbor residents are still subsidizing police services in rural areas at a much lower rate than was the case before the policy was put into effect. Mr. Minzy stated the .5 mills equates to approximately $1.6 million. The 151 FTE in police services equates to $16 million in expenses. Contracting municipalities make up the difference.
If a jurisdiction chooses not to contract for police services, the service is not provided to that jurisdiction. Instead, the jurisdiction either provides its own law enforcement services or it is covered by the Michigan State Police.
The County Board thought that some jobs would be lost due to the new contract. Retirement packages were offered and approximately one-third of the agency retired at that time. New officers were trained at a tremendous cost during the first year of the policy.
The County did not consider some issues when implementing the new police service policy. Contractors were called in at times to cover for a lack of police coverage. Transport also became an issue.
Mr. Minzy stated seven of the 20 townships in Washtenaw County had to rely on the Michigan State Police because they did not generate sufficient revenue to purchase service units.
Comm. Schafer asked if the County considered inter-agency issues such as mutual aid packages. Mr. Minzy explained that when emergencies happen, people help the community in need. He further explained the Homeland Security concerns have been built into the contract to avoid any misunderstandings. Comm. Schafer then asked about multi-agency grants. Mr. Minzy stated newly created positions within the County handle the grants.
This Committee discussed the financial aspects of the Washtenaw County police services policy. Chairperson Grebner stated Ingham County is concerned with how to provide coverage for those jurisdictions which do not generate sufficient revenue to purchase police units. Several of the County’s large jurisdictions already have their own law enforcement departments.
Chairperson Grebner asked if Washtenaw County heard any outcries from municipalities that could not afford to purchase police units. Mr. Minzy stated the County has heard different concerns from its residents and township supervisors. Township supervisors would probably tend to communicate that police services are in tact; and, residents probably complain that they are not happy with the services for various reasons. Chairperson Grebner asked if the townships considered creating a millage for those townships without any police units. Mr. Minzy stated that seemed like a very good idea until it was investigated further. It would be quite difficult for this scenario to work in some areas within the County.
Comm. Vickers asked who handles inmate watch. Mr. Minzy stated those types of services are performed by corrections officers. If any additional help is needed in these situations, they would be handled within the individual departments.
This discussion continued. Chairperson Grebner expressed his hope that there aren’t any situations where contractors will not respond to calls because the call occurs just outside their contract area. Comm. Schafer stated his concern regarding how residents are supposed to feel safe when they are only covered by the Michigan State Police.
Chairperson DeLeon asked if Washtenaw County has seen an increase in breaking and entering situations since the inception of the new police service policy. Mr. Minzy stated they have seen some spikes in those numbers. He then explained that when residents know they will not receive responses to their calls for three days, many of the theft situations are not reported. Comm. Nolan stated that as word gets out regarding a lack of police response in non-contract areas, the incidents of crime will increase.
Chairperson Grebner stated this is a quality of life issue. Crime numbers appear to fall because many crimes are not reported in non-contract areas due to the lengthy response time.
Mr. Minzy addressed some questions from the public at this time. In response to Ms. Prater, he explained that multiple jurisdictions could team up to purchase police units. Jurisdictions must purchase at least one full time deputy unit.
Mr. Minzy explained the police services contract contains a scale which identifies the number of staff needed per unit purchased.
Mr. Elsinga, Delhi Township, stated the quality of life within the Township is 150% better since it contracted for services with Ingham County approximately 15 years ago.
Chairperson DeLeon expressed this Committee’s appreciation to Mr. Minzy for attending this meeting. She also thanked Mr. Wriggelsworth and his staff for organizing this meeting with Washtenaw County.
2. Proposed Ballot Language for County Wide Police Services – Commissioner Grebner
Chairperson Grebner explained that his ballot language is only a draft. It should be tested if the Committee decides to move forward on this matter to determine what the voters may think about such a millage.
Comm. Schafer asked what the millage money would be used for. Chairperson Grebner stated the millage funds would be used for police services, not corrections. Mr. Myers explained law enforcement does not include corrections. In response to Comm. Nolan, Chairperson Grebner explained that 2.0 mills could generate approximately $12 million County wide. This number is only a guess at this time. The County would pay for half the cost of police services and the municipalities would pay the remaining half of the cost.
Comm. Vickers asked if there would be an increase in current services if such a millage was passed. Chairperson Grebner stated current services would not be increased. Current levels would be maintained. Comm. Schafer asked what would happen with the current General Fund monies which pay for road patrol if the proposed millage were to pass. Chairperson Grebner stated the County would use those funds to balance its budget. This issue can be debated as it is not a part of his proposal.
Comm. Thomas stated the theory behind the proposal is to first, protect rural road patrol services; and secondly, to alleviate the County’s current costs associated with road patrol for the County and its municipalities.
Mr. Wriggelsworth stated Mr. Minzy provided great insight into the issue of contracting for police services. At some point, this County needs to discuss what it should do about Jail over-crowding. This is a daily problem and the situation is only getting worse.
Comm. Schafer expressed his concern that there will not be an increase in the current service levels if the proposed millage were to pass. Currently, the response time in some areas is too long. Chairperson DeLeon expressed her concern that current service levels will decrease due to the current financial climate.
Chairperson Grebner stated the Jail over-crowding issue must be resolved on a per bench basis before the Board considers any proposals to increase the number of Jail beds. The Court has to realize its responsibility regarding the over-crowding concern.
Mr. Myers explained the Sheriff’s Office is not asking for an increase in the number of beds. The Office wants the current use of Jail beds to be tightened at the Court level. Chairperson DeLeon stated he has asked Mr. Neilsen to place this issue on this Committee’s next meeting agenda.
Chairperson DeLeon thanked the Sheriff’s Office for their efforts regarding Jail over-crowding and its update regarding the current and continuing situation.
3. 911 Millage – Update – Comm. Schafer
Comm. Schafer stated this Committee needs to discuss the 911 ballot issue in the near future. Mr. Neilsen stated the millage was renewed in 2004 to extend through 2008. This Committee will, however, see a proposed increase during the upcoming budget discussions.
Announcements
Comm. Nolan encouraged the Committee to visit the Allen Neighborhood Center Market.
Public Comment: None
The meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Debra Neff