Police bids might be difficult to compare
Three months of intense controversy is one very noticeable result of City Council’s Nov. 1 split 3-2 vote “to serve notice” on Brea “of termination of the police services contract” in 18 months and seek service proposals from “surrounding agencies,” including Brea.
But expect the fervor—and political danger to sitting council members—to increase exponentially when proposals are opened and evaluated after the March 15 due date.
An understandable lack of specificity in the seven-page request for proposals issued by the city might make an “apples to apples” cost comparison tricky and add to the rancor already evident among the warring parties involved in the issue.
Yorba Linda’s request asks proposers to “indicate staffing, supervision, communications, vehicles, equipment and supplies needed to provide law enforcement services to the city.”
But other than noting the city wants to “continue the same level” of services currently contracted under Brea “but at a more effective cost,” the number of officers needed to provide the services isn’t listed, leaving specific staffing open to varying interpretations.
That’s good in the sense of allowing an opportunity for innovative personnel options, because salaries, benefits and pension funding make up the bulk of any police budget.
However, comparisons among proposals will be more difficult to make, if staff levels are different in each proposal and the efficacy of fewer employees won’t be evident until one or more years into a contract with a new provider.
Unless the city uses an even-handed formula for evaluation, inevitable cries of “foul” from advocates of continuing with Brea, shifting to the Sheriff or, less probably, contracting with another city such as Anaheim or Placentia will mar the process.
Similarly, the request asks responding agencies to outline the number of patrol beats to be provided for different shifts, the responsibilities of managers and supervisors, and, a key component in any proposal, “the expected response time by patrol staff” to crime reports.
Among the other services that must be addressed in responses are traffic law and parking enforcement, investigations, training and public outreach. Facilities, vehicles, equipment, insurance and indemnification and start-up costs are other factors to be included.
The Brea contract provides 6,053 monthly hours costing about $11 million for 2011-12 (compared to 7,186 hours for some $6.6 million in 2000-01), including 3,406 for patrol officers (equal to 2000-01), 588 for traffic officers (down from 809), 882 for detectives (down from 956) and 294 for community service officers (down from 441).
This issue could dwarf the 2005-06 Town Center imbroglio, which resulted in the “right-to-vote” Measure B initiative, petition-forced rescinding of higher-density zoning in Old Town and a wholesale change in council members in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Should council choose another agency to police the city beginning May 3, 2013, look for a petition drive to overturn the vote and, possibly, a movement to recall council members who vote to jettison Brea police--just “politics as usual” in Yorba Linda
But expect the fervor—and political danger to sitting council members—to increase exponentially when proposals are opened and evaluated after the March 15 due date.
An understandable lack of specificity in the seven-page request for proposals issued by the city might make an “apples to apples” cost comparison tricky and add to the rancor already evident among the warring parties involved in the issue.
Yorba Linda’s request asks proposers to “indicate staffing, supervision, communications, vehicles, equipment and supplies needed to provide law enforcement services to the city.”
But other than noting the city wants to “continue the same level” of services currently contracted under Brea “but at a more effective cost,” the number of officers needed to provide the services isn’t listed, leaving specific staffing open to varying interpretations.
That’s good in the sense of allowing an opportunity for innovative personnel options, because salaries, benefits and pension funding make up the bulk of any police budget.
However, comparisons among proposals will be more difficult to make, if staff levels are different in each proposal and the efficacy of fewer employees won’t be evident until one or more years into a contract with a new provider.
Unless the city uses an even-handed formula for evaluation, inevitable cries of “foul” from advocates of continuing with Brea, shifting to the Sheriff or, less probably, contracting with another city such as Anaheim or Placentia will mar the process.
Similarly, the request asks responding agencies to outline the number of patrol beats to be provided for different shifts, the responsibilities of managers and supervisors, and, a key component in any proposal, “the expected response time by patrol staff” to crime reports.
Among the other services that must be addressed in responses are traffic law and parking enforcement, investigations, training and public outreach. Facilities, vehicles, equipment, insurance and indemnification and start-up costs are other factors to be included.
The Brea contract provides 6,053 monthly hours costing about $11 million for 2011-12 (compared to 7,186 hours for some $6.6 million in 2000-01), including 3,406 for patrol officers (equal to 2000-01), 588 for traffic officers (down from 809), 882 for detectives (down from 956) and 294 for community service officers (down from 441).
This issue could dwarf the 2005-06 Town Center imbroglio, which resulted in the “right-to-vote” Measure B initiative, petition-forced rescinding of higher-density zoning in Old Town and a wholesale change in council members in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Should council choose another agency to police the city beginning May 3, 2013, look for a petition drive to overturn the vote and, possibly, a movement to recall council members who vote to jettison Brea police--just “politics as usual” in Yorba Linda
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 AM
<< Home