More on the police chopper
By Andrew Edwards
Staff Writer
SAN BERNARDINO -- Five civilian Police Department employees in danger of being laid off now appear to be able to keep their jobs following the City Council's decision to use Measure Z dollars on their paychecks.
The decision shows that Measure Z -- the sales tax hike that San Bernardino voters agreed to in 2006 to beef up anti-crime efforts -- is now being used in part to hold the line on Police Department staffing at a time when city finances have taken a turn for the worse.
The council cast a 5-1 vote on Monday to spend slightly more than $284,000 of Measure Z dollars to keep the five civilian positions on the Police Department payroll.
The employees saved are one community service officer supervisor responsible for red light cameras, two community service officers, a forensic technician and a fleet expediter.
Early on in this summer's extensive budget debates, that money was set to be allocated to keep the Police Department's helicopter in the air.
But on Sept. 2, the council acted to delete aerial patrols from the budget and use the money to finance three detectives' and three sergeants' positions.
But on Monday, the council changed course on both the Measure Z and helicopter issues. The council's previous decision to fund the six officers' positions would have allowed police commanders to promote current officers, but not provided for a net increase in the city's police force.
Based on the idea that cutting support staffers would have resulted in sworn police officers spending time at desks instead of in the field, the council redirected money to prevent five nonsworn employees from being laid off.
"Do we want to keep as many law enforcement officers on the street as possible? Yes," Seventh Ward Councilwoman Wendy McCammack said Tuesday.
McCammack maintained that since the five nonsworn employees were otherwise set to lose their jobs, the Measure Z dollars being used to pay their salaries still represent an enhancement to San Bernardino's policing capabilities.
Also on Monday, the council reversed its decision to cancel the helicopter contract with Riverside-based California Aviation Services.
City Attorney James F. Penman said that decision was made during closed session, and that the secrecy was legally justified because of the possibility that nixing the helicopter contract could have exposed City Hall to a litigation.
"There was a legal issue as to whether the city had authority to unilaterally cancel the contract," Penman said.
Acting City Manager Lori Sassoon said the helicopter is not currently accounted for in the city budget.
"There will need to be action to pay for the helicopter contract at the next City Council meeting," she said. "So we will need to identify a way to pay for that contract."
When the police helicopter was still in the budget, officials expected to spend nearly $556,000 to give police a bird's eye view of the city. Penman said San Bernardino officials now intend to renegotiate the deal.
Police Chief Michael Billdt said department administrators will work to implement the council's decisions. Helicopter patrols have not ceased since the now-cancelled decision to axe the program.
San Bernardino officials expect the Measure Z sales tax to generate about $7 million in revenues during the budget year ending June 30. Unused dollars from the previous budget cycle would allow the Police Department to use about $7.7 million in Measure Z funds, while the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department would get $149,000 to run the city's three Operation Phoenix community centers.
Monday's vote does not change the highly-publicized plans to hire a net total of 40 new police officers by the end of the budget year.
soooooo, we got duped, again?
What city enters into a service contract without some language allowing for the early termination of said contract?
In all fairness to Chief Billdt, you have to remember he doesn't have a real college degree. Maybe this is the type of business practice "Auggi U" teaches. Or wait, maybe this is what he's learned in his fourteen years of "leadership experience".
What about the contractor who invested in the City? Who would put out hundreds of thousands of dollars and have a City Council just make a vote and leave them hanging? As a business, you can't invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on a helicopter, and not have some type of guarantee. So I guess your solution is to allow the City Council to invite business into the City, and then be able to cancel them because of inner departmental and internal city politics and leave the business at a potential millions of dollars loss. Early termination is fine as long as it is due to fault. Here, the City simply decided to change their mind after the business invested in equipment. Why is it ok that you can screw the contractor by changing your mind? Who would ever do business with a City who says, "we want you to invest millions of your dollars, but we can change our mind and cancel you at any time". You are crazy.
to annonymous,
You're right that the city should not just be able to cancel a contract because of internal stife. My arguement was that there's usually a clause in a contract allowing for both sides to terminate the contract with good cause and within a specific time frame. Not having the money to pay sounds like a pretty good reason to me.
However, you're incorrect in that the helicopter company has invested millions of dollars in the city. The company contracts with other cities to provide helicopter service. The money the owner "invested" was into his own company because felt there was a need for his services. This is commonly referred to as "capitalism". Unfortunately, in uncertain economic times, businesses and cities need to re-evaluate their expenditures. That's what the city is doing.
The city is in a financial crisis, which is expected to get worse next year. The argument for ending or modifying the helicopter contract was so that some employees will be able to keep their jobs and support their families.
Look at a city's budget similar to your own personal budget. When the money runs out you have to make tough decisions on where to cut back in order to survive. That's basic economics. With a multi-million dollar budget defecit, San Bernardino has to make cuts somewhere.
Here's another example. Over the last several years, major corporations have filed for bankruptcy protection as a means of modifying or getting out of their pension contracts. If I understand your argument, they shouldn't have been able to do that because the company entered into a contract with it's employees.
The city of Valejo a more current example. The city was awarded bankruptcy protection in order to get out of its current police and fire union contracts. Don't think the same thing can't/won't happen in San Bernardino. The writing is on the wall.
Capitalism indeed. I am amazed that you hold to the theory that the City of SB can have a vendor invest (yes invest) in million dollar equipment and they should just accept the City cancellation. Why would any company contract with a City if they can simply change their mind! Your idea that this vendor services other cities has nothing to do with SB. If you pay a contractor to build you a house; the contractor buys lumber and materials; then you change your mind and say you are not going to pay? But because the contractor builds houses in other cities for other people, he should be able to handle the loss? If the contractor just decided to leave SB, I am sure the City would go after him for not completing his side of the agreement! He must have invested a significant amount and relied on the City to stand up to their agreement. Just because they work in other cities is a rediculous argument.
Anonymous....I understand your point. I think you missed mine. I don't believe the contractor purchased this helicopter solely for use within San Bernardino. As I recall, the city was considering purchasing it's own helicopter, but it was going take a year or two to build at a cost of one or two million dollars. SB pays $650,000 or so for a one year contract. It would be poor business to spend two million dollars for a single $650,000 contract. So my argument that this helicopter can be used in other cities is not ridiculous. The owner of the company invested in his company, not San Bernardino.
Once again, I was simply asking why an early termination-type clause wasn't included with the helicopter contract. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any type of compensation from the city if the contract is terminated. However, if the contract is cancelled and the city pays out a smaller amount of money, then the additional savings can be used to retain some of the employees that were previously let go.
This is really a moot point since the helicopter is staying. However, next years contract could be an issue.
Agreed
I agreed with getting rid of the helicopter if it allowed (at least some of the) non-sworn employees to say on the job but I do see the need for this city to have it....
I believe that police safety is very important, and if PD believes that the helicopter adds to that then we should try to budget for it. It is the least we can do for the men and women who serve us.
My concern is Billdt. He have proven that he does not value the non-sworn employees, and through other avenues shown that he doesn't value the sworn officers either. A sad fact but not surprising.....it is San Bernardino, after all.
To Sick and Tired of the BS,
You seem to be a voice of reason throughout all, so I ask you this. Has 40-King let the City of SB down in some form? I mean, why did we contract with this helicopter (Air-1) to begin with? It seems to me that 40-King has assisted with SBPD whenever we have needed their assistance therefore, why do we need our own "eye-in-the sky"??
40 King is responsible for serving the ENTIRE COUNTY of San Bernardino. As a city with the activity we have in SB, we can not expect 40 King to come whenever we call. They have a much different roll and we are not their most important place to spend the county sheriff's budget money on. Look at Riverside, Fontana, Corona, Ontario, San Diego, etc. All of these "cities" have their own aviation to support the "city". Each "county" also has aviation which covers these areas as necessary when they can.
One more thing: from what has been published before, I think many of the pilots who fly over our city in our helicopter came from 40 King. If they are flying our City helicopter now, then they must see a reason why we need our own helicopter too. Nobody has said 40 King doesn't do a great job. We need constant service and it is not available for SB all the times we need it.
No one says 40 King doesn't do an outstanding job. As a matter of fact, many of the pilots who fly our city helicopter are 40 King pilots. If we have 40 King pilots flying here, they must realize also that there is a need for our own helicopter. We are not the focus of the sheriff's department helicopter and we shouldn't expect them to always run over here to handle our city when they have the entire county to cover. Most cities, Riverside, Ontario, Pomona, Fontana, Corona etc have their own helicopter for their specific city police officers to utilize. The county helicopters come in and cover when the cities helicopters are down for maintenance etc. We need specific constant helicopter patrol. We shouldn't expect the Sheriff's budget to patrol constantly for our city.
OOOPS....The last 2 posts were both from me. I didn't think the first went through.