The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAdministrative Study Final Report Feasiblity of Consolidating the Town of mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont Police Departments 7/1/1997 4 . fir ADMINISTRATIVE STUDY Final Report Feasibility of Consolidating the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont Police Departments • JULY 1997 -fit -.,_'L' "ct f Yt y-,]^l l f�siy •%.d "A 1 . . __ r. r sp- ` 4 _ .4 .-::_,... , ..?...3;,' )...2:._..4._: r -;7_4.4,..ftie.:z.p.4- 1_ 1:k,A•'3 I:if:..— ..,-• ."...,:_,......T.::::::•,::\:*_ I...-td- ,,;:_. _..._ .. " 'r • 4. v' r- fp'....--.);•;'.3:4,1/...5..' rt � w _ e ,.C�l! i-inf rii'ffZ -:::-.:7-:_:-.::-..4.,rr r 3 fi ;� f� aa4r i��%�� 14if'rk ?e4ffi��tif ,r �. � � • y�, - of 4IYtsf+yyy'4,1� •;�f 1r - 1 _ r ' 1 ‘ J _ .-_ . --"..i .--, ‘,-; _ •-,:i -:'"_-.. •-. .s.- , ;e.N-1.-7:„1- .- —,_,,,v- -* ---. - - 4 ,-,mc--4,.., ...:,....‘....,,),._•., Ei ,. i,fp i_,\.e 7.!_. ._ ., . I . ' .- - -ir-r1 Vi i t*.1 t-1 ;:l C, ij 5.-' 1. I' Fi,!--1110 r LAI:-.1.\„,.../.. ..--'; . , ,-,------------__,/,:-- . 0 u- r t „a .� y. r v -A'Yr `a te s ,S te•.-i_ Y,Y�I.R,s..^f t."e•s-,r+ 1f � xti a •, �♦ • s ty ;47.>""- -•(--':2,.'::•;., tr ... - !' ` • - '1 ' I • 111�1 'RQ1 .+ —. i" 1a iti� :41s1i(.1,- i .. iT � ' -o 1 _` •r y r "s ..we i i .....A.4.."-- f7_111�1 l 1 A71 � �� -":-.:4.,:-- 'ap t • - ? + • .•r.•+—cam-+oma+- _ - `�" - - • • I - i Feasibility of Consolidating the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont Police Departments New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Office of Public Safety-Bureau for Municipal Police 1 4 Tower Place Albany, New York 12203-3764 1 Jerry E. Burrell Richard L. Olson Deputy Commissioner Assistant Director Office of Public Safety Bureau for Municipal Police V 1 1 Administrative Studies Program (518) 485-1414 1 John R. Digman 1 Program Manager 1 Prepared By: 1 F. William Kervan Associate Training Technician Administrative Studies Program 1 1 I . Table of Contents I. Preface The Nature of Administrative Studies Enabling Authority Disclaimer Acknowledgments II. Executive Summary iv III. Introduction 1 Task and Methodology 1 The Town of Mamaroneck 2 Characteristics 2 Police Department 2 Police Costs 3 Level of Crime 3 The Village of Larchmont 5 Characteristics 5 Police Department 5 Police Costs 6 Level of Crime 6 IV. Consolidation Overview 8 Advantages and Disadvantages 9 Structural Versus Functional Consolidation 11 Legal Aspects of Consolidation 12 Staffing Analysis 16 Tentative Costs 26 Facility Needs 28 Arguments for and Against Consolidation ?9 V. Alternatives to Full Consolidation 31 VI. Conclusion 33 VII. Appendices A. Administrative Study Data Checklists B. Copy of agreement for police services between the Village of Lake George and Warren County C. Articles 5-G and 6 of the NYS General Municipal Law D. Relevant opinions of the State Comptroller and Attorney General E. NYS Civil Service Law §83 F. Taylor Law Implications of Government Consolidation G. Law and Opinion Pertaining to Desk Duty H. State-Local Brief, New York's Experience with Police Consolidation I. Response letters of Chiefs Rivera and Keresey to the Preliminary Report I. Preface The Nature of Administrative Studies Emergencies of the day frequently prevent police administrators from giving adequate attention to the areas of planning and research. Accelerating changes in today's world create unusual pressures on law enforcement agencies and increase the need for flexibility in their management and organization. The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) sponsors several programs to help public officials meet the many challenges that they now confront. One service in particular, the Administrative Studies Program, offers administrative assistance and in-depth studies to local law enforcement agencies as well as to municipalities exploring the possibility of establishing a police department. The purpose of the studies is to provide (on a short-term basis) the staff assistance necessary to aid administrators in combining new ideas, concepts and methods with a professional and objective analysis of local realities. The studies focus on immediate needs and incorporate both historical data and emerging trends. The studies give decision makers an impartial look at their police department from the perspective of an outside agency. Two types of services are offered: Staff Consultations and Formal Studies. 1. Staff Consultations Staff consultations are conducted through informal discussions between department officials and Bureau for Municipal Police staff. Consultations are typically conducted over the phone or through correspondence that documents the research requested. Staff consultations seldom involve the preparation of a detailed report. 1 2. Formal Studies Formal studies focus on issues of special interest to a particular agency. Program staff conduct field visits and prepare a written report with documented findings and specific recommendations for the chief executive officer to consider. A formal study might address one or more of the following functions: Patrol; Investigation; Training; Records System; Personnel Systems; Rules of Conduct; Consolidation and/or Joint Services; Organization; Community Relations; Staffing; Mission, Goals and Objectives; Evidence; Booking. Procedures; Equipment; and Patrol Sector Design. Other areas may also be explored in accordance with the wishes of the agency's chief executive. The Bureau for Municipal Police assigns experienced staff to conduct the necessary research and propose appropriate recommendations. Draft reports are then reviewed by the Deputy Commissioner and other senior staff of the Office of Public Safety prior to release. Tne Bureau for Municipal Police does not charge localities for the preparation of these studies. The jurisdiction requesting an administrative study has distribution control over any reports resulting from this service. The Bureau for Municipal Police may, however, be required to release the report to other parties pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Law. Finally, it is important to note that an administrative study is not an end in itself; the report merely documents the need for change where such a need exists. Consequently, the value of the study is directly proportionate to the attention that agency officials give to the authors' analysis. The Bureau for Municipal Police will provide technical assistance upon request to facilitate the successful implementation of its recommendations. ii ' Enabling Authority_ v The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) was created by law on September 1. 1972. It has five major components: The Office of Public Safety, the Office of Identification Services, the Office of Funding and Program Assistance, the Office of Justice Systems Analysis, and the Office of Administration and Information Services. 1 DCJS conducts administrative studies pursuant to the authority granted by the New York State Executive Law. Article 35, section 837, subdivision 5, states that the Division shall: "Conduct studies and analyses of the administration or 1 operations of any criminal justice agency when requested by the head of such agency and make the results thereof available for lthe benefit of such agency." Responsibility for conducting these studies has been assigned to the Division's Bureau for Municipal Police (BMP), which is within the Office of Public Safety. Disclaimer Most of the information, recommendations and suggestions contained in this report are based upon an analysis of data supplied by the police departments serving the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont. The analysis is thus directly related to the reliability and validity of the information provided. Even though the record keeping system of these agencies appears to reflect the police department's activity correctly, the Bureau for Municipal Police cannot guarantee the accuracy of all submitted data. Acknowledgments BMP would like to thank Mamaroneck Police Chief Richard Rivera, Larchmont Police Chief William J. Keresey, and the members of the Mamaroneck and Larchmont Police Departments for their cooperation during the course of the study. This report could not have been completed without their assistance. iii i 1. II. Executive Summary The following is a summary of the findings made pursuant to the Division of Criminal Justice Services' analysis. The findings are supported by detailed explanations in the body of the report. 1. On August 8, 1995 the New York State Division of Criminal Justice 1 Services, Bureau for Municipal Police, entered into an agreement with Chief of Police Richard Rivera of the Town of Mamaroneck and Chief of Police William Keresay of the Village of Larchmont to conduct a consolidation feasibility study of the two police departments. 2. Both departments provided several types of data requested by the Bureau for Municipal Police (BMP), and a Bureau staff member conducted on-site field visits to both departments in August of 1996. During_ the field visits, staff collected additional data, toured the municipalities, and interviewed several officers. Both departments were also contacted prior to releasing this report to verify that the data used were still accurate. 3. The Town of Mamaroneck Police Department is staffed by forty sworn officers, one civilian clerk and twelve crossing guards. The Village of Larchmont Police Department is staffed by twenty-eight sworn officers and nineteen full and part-time civilian employees. Combined, there is a total of sixty-eight sworn officers: two chiefs, one captain, four lieutenants, eleven patrol sergeants, two detective sergeants, six detectives and forty-two police officers. There are thirty-two full and part-time civilian personnel. 4. The two municipalities have a combined population of 17,412 people with Larchmont having 6,181 persons and the Town of Mamaroneck having 11,231 persons. Geographically, the communities encompass about eight square miles of land area. 5. The combined annual budgets of the two police departments total just over $4,900,000. In 1995, Mamaroneck spent $2,846,155, while Larchmont spent $2,090,000. iv 6. Based on the calls for service workloads submitted by both departments, a consolidated police department should be staffed by fifty-two officers, sixteen fewer than the present total of sixty-eight. Sworn personnel would include the chief of police, two lieutenants, one detective sergeant, one administrative sergeant, six patrol sergeants, five detectives, one juvenile officer, and thirty-five patrol officers. This 1 number could be reduced to forty-six sworn personnel if civilians were used for the desk/dispatch function. The present civilian staff of thirty- two full and part-time personnel should be maintained. 7. Consolidation of the two departments could save taxpayers close to $1,350,000 in annual personnel and administrative costs. 8. Consolidation is legal. There are, however, several issues pertaining to the Taylor Law that may affect a Larchmont/Mamaroneck consolidation. 9. Consolidation is an appropriate option for local officials to consider and is manageable from an administrative, practical and geographical standpoint. 10. Consolidation should facilitate a better coordination of law enforcement services. 11. On the negative side, consolidation might reduce the control that Larchmont officials and residents have over police services and operations. In addition, it may be perceived that a certain amount of village "identity" might be lost with the abolition of its police department. Consolidation could result in less proactive patrol in both the Town and the Village as the workload is fairly evenly distributed in both communities. Police and community leaders need to be sensitive to such perceptions. 12. As an alternative to full consolidation, the two communities could consolidate their desk'dispatch function into a single town-wide operation. This would require six fewer officers in the Village of Larchmont. Furthermore, the Town of Mamaroneck could civilianize its desk'dispatch operation by replacing the sworn officers on desk/dispatch duty with trained civilians which would free up additional officers. v III. Introduction Task and Methodology 1 On June 28, 1995 and July 6, 1995. DCJS received written requests from Chiefs Keresey and Rivera respectively, asking the Bureau for Municipal 1 Police to assess the feasibility of consolidating the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont Police Departments. In accordance with DCJS ] procedures, the chiefs subsequently signed an agreement that outlined the conditions under which the study would be conducted. The agreement assured BMP of the agencies complete cooperation during the preparation of the report. It also gave BMP staff the authority to examine all relevant documents and to meet with appropriate members of the departments. BMP staff member F. ` William Kervan subsequently visited Mamaroneck and Larchmont on August 14 and 15, 1996 to interview Chiefs Keresey and Rivera. In addition, Mr. Kervan interviewed several staff members of each police department and spoke with the Mayor of Larchmont. No interview was conducted with the Town Supervisor. BMP personnel had additional contact with both police departments while preparing this report to confirm and/or update the data that were collected. The analysis that follows is based upon the expertise of Bureau for Municipal Police staff and the use of established formulas that analyze reported agency activity. The validity of all recommendations pertaining to patrol staffing levels is heavily dependent upon the quality of the data provided by the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont Police Departments. Copies of the statistical checklists that each department submitted can be found in Appendix A. Staff members who prepare administrative studies frequently consult with personnel assigned to support the State Law Enforcement Accreditation Program to ensure that recommendations are consistent with prevailing professional standards. Agencies that are not participating in the Accreditation Program are strongly encouraged to consider doing so. Participation enables v 1 1 administrators to strengthen existing procedures while simultaneously creating a solid foundation for their agency's future. Participation also sends a strong. positive message to the community served by the agency that officials are committed to providing. services of the highest quality. The Town of Mamaroneck Police Department submitted an application to participate in the Accreditation Program in March 1992 and expects to be ready for a formal assessment in early 1997. I The Town of Mamaroneck Characteristics 1 The Town of Mamaroneck is located in Westchester County about eight l miles northeast of New York City. The town covers approximately 6.7 square miles of land and has thirty-six miles of roadway. The 1990 census figures indicate that the town has 11,231 residents, a decline of nearly 2,000 people since the 1970 census was taken. Major transportation routes within the town limits include the New England Thruway (Interstate 95) and U.S. 41. There is often heavy traffic, especially along. U.S. 1, which is a busy thoroughfare leading into New York City. The Town is managed by a Supervisor - Council form of government. Mamaroneck has a small commercial area, located mainly along U.S. 1 between the Villages of Mamaroneck and Larchmont. The community is generally a residential bedroom community of New York City consisting of upper middle class to wealthy residents. There are several apartment complexes in the area, including one large complex for senior citizens. Police Department The Town of Mamaroneck Police Department provides full-time law enforcement coverage to its residents. The Police Department is staffed by forty full-time sworn personnel, including one chief, three lieutenants, six 2 ■ sergeants. one detective sergeant, four detectives and twenty-five police officers. The department also employs thirteen civilians: a full-time secretary;clerk and twelve part-time school crossing guards. The department usually deploys three patrol units on each of the three work shifts in addition to a sergeant and a police officer who is assigned to the desk/dispatch position. Usually on the day and evening tour a lieutenant is also 1 on duty. The department is an answering_ point for the Westchester County E- 911 system. Police Costs • The 1996-97 budget for the Town of Mamaroneck Police Department is $2,846,155, the same amount as 1995. Of this figure, $2,720,355 is allocated for personnel expenses, $28,850 is budgeted for equipment, and $96,90 is dedicated for contractual'services. These figures show that ninety- six percent of all law enforcement expenses in the Town of Mamaroneck are used to pay employee salaries, overtime and other personnel costs. Level of Crime The charts on page four show the number of crimes in the Town of Mamaroneck for the five-year period from 1990 to 1994. The first chart shows the trend in serious crime, Part I Offenses, while the second chart features the less serious or Part II Offenses. Part I Offenses include murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and vehicle theft. Part II Offenses include all other offenses except traffic offenses. Generally speaking, the crime rate has remained relatively constant over the five-year period shown in the charts. The crime index for Mamaroneck was 29.1 per thousand residents in 1994. There were thus approximately twenty-nine serious reported crimes for every one thousand residents in the town. The index is about average for all communities in Westchester County. Crimes against persons are rare in the Town, with no murders or rapes being reported in either 1993 or 1994. Three robberies were committed in 1994, while two were committed in 1993. 3 1' , . I Town of Mamaroneck i - Part I Crimes / 348 _". 338 - .._' 324 1 350 — ---` -- 300 292 `"--- c.. 255 250 -- _..------ 1 200 150 J - r 100 ------ 0 1 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 I I I Town of Mamaroneck 1 Part II Crimes I 300 ------ - 24, —238,_j _ 250 s 21 1 200 150 100 _ 0 ' 1 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1 I I 4 1 The Village of Larchmont Characteristics 1 The Village of Larchmont is located within the Town of Mamaroneck near its southwestern border with New Rochelle. There is slightly over one square mile of land area making up the village. Larchmont has twenty-four miles of roadway. Major transportation routes within the village limits include the New England Thruway and U.S. 41. Like the Town of Mamaroneck, the population in Larchmont has been dropping. In 1980, 7,600 people lived in the village. In 1990, the town had 6,181 residents, a drop of nearly twenty percent in just ten years. The adult population consists largely of upper middle class to wealthy homeowners. Though mainly residential, the village has two small but very busy commercial areas consisting of shops, restaurants and other businesses. The Village also has a busy commuter train station and adjacent parking area within its limits. The Village is managed by a mayor-trustee form of government. Police Department The Village of Larchmont Police Department provides full-time law enforcement coverage to its residents. The Department is staffed by twenty- eight full-time sworn officers: one chief, one captain, one lieutenant, five sergeants, one detective sergeant, two detectives and seventeen police officers. The Department employs nineteen civilians to supplement sworn staff. The civilians include nine full-time personnel: one clerk typist, two parking enforcement officers, and six school crossing guards. There are also ten part- time employees: a laborer who serves as a mechanic for the village, three school crossing guards, six parking enforcement officers, and five police aides who help to enforce parking regulations from midnight to 5:00 a.m.. 5 1 ,. The Larchmont Police Department deploys one sergeant and two police officers on each of the three work shifts. In addition, another police officer works at the station in a desk,"dispatch role. Chief Keresey advised BMP staffthat the Larchmont Police Department is very service oriented. Because of the size and affluent nature of the community, citizens have come to expect this type of service from the police. 1 Police Costs 1 The 1995-96 budget for the Larchmont Police Department is $2,090,000. This includes $1,926,000 in salaries (92%) and $164,400 for other expenditures. Level of Crime There were two hundred seventy-two serious (Part I) crimes reported to the police in Larchmont during 1994. This includes fifty-four burglaries and one hundred sixty-nine larcenies. Crimes against persons were relatively low, with nine assaults and one rape being reported. No murders or rapes were reported in 1993. There were 43.4 reported crimes per.one thousand residents. This rate is somewhat higher than that of many other Westchester County communities and is forty-eight percent higher than that of the Town of Mamaroneck. The following, charts show the crime trend in Larchmont over the last five years for which DCJS has statistics. Part I crimes declined steadily before rising, substantially in 1994. Part II crimes, again the less serious offenses, have dropped steadily since 1990. 6 I. I Village of Larchmont 1 Part I Crimes 300 zr 250 'zos 200 _ �,so •j 150 • 100 /l 50 0 " 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 , Village of Larchmont Part II Crimes 350 / aza- _ —296 300 l zsa 250 z,7 200 / 150 l 100 �.--- . 50 ----- 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Figure 4 7 I I IV. Consolidation Overview Costs associated with providing municipal law enforcement/public safety services have risen dramatically in recent years. The fiscal distress associated with rising costs is often compounded by shrinking tax bases. In an effort to stabilize or reduce tax burdens on citizens, municipal officials are now more frequently reevaluating the manner in which law enforcement/public safety services are provided. In some instances, municipal leaders have argued that police services might be duplicative in places where two or more police departments share concurrent jurisdiction. For example, there may be an unecessary overlap of services where there is a village wholly within a town and both operate police departments. Of course, the same argument could be made for other services whether' it be snow removal, garbage pickup, or libraries and recreation departments. Exploring consolidation as an option to stabilize or reduce law enforcement/public safety costs may be well worth the effort in those communities where it is warranted by local circumstances. Consolidation can nevertheless be an extraordinarily complicated and controversial proposition. Police services are generally among the most important and politically sensitive services that local governments provide. Consolidation efforts may thus be well supported despite significant drawbacks or strenuously resisted 1 despite significant advantages. Rarely, if ever, is there full ageement to move in one direction or the other. For example, while there may be no substantive drawbacks to combining. police services, members of a community may still object based upon the notion that consolidation in the area of law enforcement could represent the beginning of a broader consolidation that they do not support (e.g., the total consolidation of political subdivisions.) 8 lommosommemr- 1 Advantages and Disadvantages' Advantages Consolidation mitigates several conditions which limit or reduce the effectiveness of law enforcement services. Proponents claim that merging smaller agencies tends to reduce jurisdictional overlapping, restrictions and conflicts. Duplication of effort can be minimized through consolidation, and consistent area-wide practices and procedures can be established. For example, consolidation eliminates some of the legal constraints associated with overlapping municipal boundaries, therefore allowing, patrols to be utilized more efficiently through the realignment of patrol areas. This has the potential to distribute demands on patrols more evenly and to reduce response times to calls for service. Consolidation also reduces the possibility of independent, parallel investigations into the same matter. • Consolidation results in an improved level of quality and service. It is argued that mergers result in a broader range and level of service than is financially possible through smaller agencies. These improvements result from more efficient utilization of resources, strengthened communications capabilities, and increased collaboration among, officers. For example, the investigative abilities may be strengthened significantly through the assignment of officers to an investigative unit. As separate entities, staffing limitations may not have allowed either organization to address this important function adequately. • Consolidation results in higher quality personnel. Officer training, supervision and working conditions for at least some of the affected officers may be significantly better following consolidation. This benefit is especially likely to occur if one of the agencies had significantly fewer resources than the other prior to consolidating. =Most of the information included in this section has been taken from Terry Koepsell and Charles Girard. Small Police Agency Consolidation Suggested approaches, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1979. 9 miummummommI- • Consolidation produces improved efficiencies and economies of scale. Proponents argue that merging small agencies can reduce costs or increase service without any increase in funding. Cost savings can be attributed to reducing duplication in the areas of administrative staff(e.g., management and supervision), support personnel (e.g., office and communications), facilities, equipment (e.g., automobiles, communications) and miscellaneous expenses (e.g., liability insurance). Disadvantages • Loss of law enforcement services. Opponents claim that mergers tend to dilute the relationship between citizens and their law enforcement officers. In addition to the psychological loss of identity among communities that lose their own police department, opponents argue that local officers know the people and problems of a community better than those employed by a larger consolidated agency. It is also asserted that some of the less visible police activities such as local code enforcement may suffer following consolidation. 1 • Consolidation has not been proven to be more effective than existing delivery systems. While there are many potential benefits to consolidation, some critics maintain that there is insufficient empirical evidence proving that these benefits actually occur. • Loss of control over the level and quality of service. Consolidation requires that elected officials in the involved communities surrender some of the influence that they once had over agency matters such as staffing, priorities, and expenditures. This loss of control becomes particularly problematic if the quality or extent of police service becomes unsatisfactory. An example of how this might occur would be if the officers previously assigned to patrol a particular neighborhood were reassigned to a troublesome area in another municipality. The new deployment of available personnel may be appropriate, but there could still be a legitimate perception among some people that the police are providing less service in their neighborhood than ( they did prior to the consolidation. Consolidation may cost as much or more than the current delivery system. Even though some data demonstrate that consolidation can be fiscally 10 1 m I beneficial for smaller municipalities, it would be a mistake to assume that this will always be the case. Quality demands, citizen satisfaction and other subjective criteria that are difficult to identify and/or quantify can also be problematic. I Structural Versus Functional Consolidation.' It may be misleading to consider small police departments as being totally independent entities. Many work cooperatively with other agencies in specific areas, thus achieving some of the benefits which are typically associated with consolidation. Consolidation can generally be characterized as "functional" or "structural". Functional consolidation tends to be less formal and usually involves a limited sharing_ of resources. Each entity remains autonomous under this arrangement. I Structural consolidation tends to be more formal and far-reaching. Generally speaking, structural consolidation involves the formal merger of two or more agencies in a way that allows for the elimination of duplicative staff and functions such as administration and communications. More specific examples of the various types of consolidation are outlined below. • Service Consolidation. This is the practice of merging specific services that are not efficient or cost effective for an individual small department to provide. Consolidation may impact the provision of many services including training, investigations, and the use of expensive or highly technical equipment. A common example of service consolidation is that of a jcentralized communication service provided by a county Sheriffs Office or 911 operation. 2"New York's Experience with Police Consolidation", State-Local Issue Brief, 2 (4), November 1989. 11 1 • Mutual Aid. The National Sheriffs Association defines mutual aid as "an exchange of services, personnel andior equipment between law enforcement agencies during. times of emergency." Virtually all law enforcement agencies have agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to provide and receive mutual aid when necessary. • Joint Activity. Police agencies having, jurisdiction in a given locality may unite to perform specific joint activities. Equipment that individual units may not be able to purchase separately, for example, may be affordable if purchased jointly. • Contracting. This is a method by which one governmental entity enters into a formal binding agreement with another to provide services for an established fee. Agreements of this type generally involve a relatively small entity such as a village or town and a much larger organization such as the county Sheriffs Office. • Police Service Districts. A police service district is an area within an individual county where a certain level of service is provided and financed through a special tax or assessment. • Formal Consolidation (of rvo or more agencies. Formal consolidation occurs when two or more municipalities officially pool their resources (e.g., funds, staff; facilities, equipment) to establish a new multi-jurisdictional agency. • Dissolution. New York State does not require municipalities to have an established police department. Smaller municipalities thus have the option of dissolving their police department and relying on services provided by the New York State Police and the County Sheriffs Department. However, it should also be noted that, while Sheriffs Departments have road patrols, there is no statutory requirement that they be provided. Legal Aspects of Consolidation To date, a relatively small number of full consolidations have occurred within New York State. As a result, many of the legal issues involving 12 I I consolidation do not have precedents from which to draw information. Communities which have fully consolidated police services include the Town and Village of New Paltz (Ulster County), the Town and Village of Warwick (Orange County), and the Town and Village of Waterford. Contracting for services has occurred more frequently and therefore, a larger number of precedents to draw information from have been established. Communities which have contracted for police services from respective County Sheriff's Departments include the Town of Clifton Park (Saratoga County); the Towns of Austerlitz, Chatham, Livingston, Hillsdale, Ghent, Greenport and the Village of Valatie (Columbia County); and the Towns of Queensbury, Kingsbury and the Village of Lake George (Warren County). A copy of an agreement for police services between a County (Sheriffs Department) and a Village is included in this report for reference purposes (see Appendix B). Full consolidation appears to be permissible under Articles 5-G and 6, Section I21-a of the General Municipal Law (GAIL) of the State of New York. Copies of these laws are included in this report (see Appendix C). In brief, Article 5-G GML addresses municipal cooperation. This section of law enables local municipal governments, through a joint effort, to provide services to their constituents. When an agreement on the joint offering of police services is reached, it must be approved by each participating municipality through a majority vote by each governing body. The agreement for the joint provision of services should be written in such detail to address all foreseeable considerations (e.g., equitable allocation and financing of capital operating costs.) The issue is discussed in detail in the section which follows. The State Comptroller and Attorney General have issued several relevant opinions concerning Article 5-G Gi✓IL and police department consolidations. The opinions are listed below and copies of each are included in this report (see Appendix D) 13 1' 1. A town and village may contract for the furnishing. of joint police protection (Op. State Compt. 70-313). l2. A town and village may merge their respective police departments by entering into an agreement (Op. State Compt. 78-696). 1 3. An agreement establishing a joint police department under this article is not subject to voter approval (Op. State Compt. 78-613). Consolidation may also be accomplished through Article 6, Section 121-a GML. Under this section, the procedures are more restrictive. A permissive referendum may be presented to the village(s) and town(s) considering a merger. This proposition would be placed before the voters during a special or general election. Upon adoption of the proposition, the governing bodies of the village(s) and town(s) are required to meet in joint session to organize a unified police,department. The board is also required to appoint a chief of police for a period of three years. The appointee must be a resident of the area covered by the new department. In addition, Section 83-a of the Civil Service Law(CSL)provides for the creation of a Police Advisory Board by the local legislative body. This board is responsible for the regrouping of personnel affected by a consolidation. The intent of the statute is "to provide for a uniform and equitable method for transferring members of existing police departments into the combined agency structure." The Police Advisory Board also monitors personnel transfers and makes recommendations concerning ranks and assignments to the President of the NYS Civil Service Commission. More detailed information is included in the attached copy of Section 83 of the Civil Service Law (see Appendix E). Since members of police departments may be represented by a collective bargaining unit, Public Employment Relation Board (PERB) rulings may have a significant effect on consolidation efforts. A copy of an article written by a PERB attorney, which described the implication of the Taylor Law on government consolidation is attached for reference purposes (see Appendix F). 14 DCJS stresses the need for municipal attorneys to be consulted at every stage of a consolidation effort. J Summary 1 When exploring the feasibility of consolidation, competing considerations may make it difficult to identify a most favored position. Again, fiscal considerations are not always the pivotal concern and the desire to retain local oversight may take precedence. Peripheral considerations (e.g., public sensitivities and perceptions, labor/union issues) may play a very significant role. Public opinion may be split, perhaps evenly. ic i All of this points to the need for municipal officials to conduct an exhaustive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation in advance of making a formal recommendation. The investigative process should involve obtaining input from and communicating information to 1 members of the affected law enforcement agencies and citizens. Development of a thorough understanding and a detailed written agreement in advance of the actual consolidation is also critically important. The agreement must contain very specific language and should minimize 1 personal interpretations. This decreases the likelihood of disagreement or dissatisfaction after consolidation. For example, the yearly amounts (percentages) to be contributed should be specified for each municipality. The role and responsibilities of each 1 municipality in the areas of agency oversight and administration (e.g., chain of command, hiring, labor contacts, disciplinary matters, expenditures, special services, purchasing) should be outlined in detail. Minimum staffing. levels in each of the affected communities is also likely to be an issue which requires clarification in the written agreement. 15 I. Staffing Analysis Police staffing in every community should be adequate to meet the demands that are placed on law enforcement officials. The issue of staffing is particularly relevant for Mamaroneck and Larchmont because personal service costs (i.e., salaries), account for more than ninety percent of their police budgets and because most consolidation proposals are made in an effort to save tax dollars. Thus the implication of consolidation is that there will be fewer police officers or civilian employees. The following section of this report analyzes the combined police staffing needs of the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont, Patrol Division Patrol is the most fundamental of all law enforcement operations. Uniformed police officers assigned to conspicuous patrol vehicles provide the basic services for which the police department was established. The patrol force seeks to prevent criminal activity by creating the appearance of omnipresence and the impression, if not the reality, that offenders will be immediately apprehended. Patrol responsibility is not limited to the prevention of crimes and the apprehension of offenders. The patrol force is also a service unit, providing assistance and emergency care in the event of injury, sickness, loss of property, or even citizen inconvenience. Uniformed officers are usually the first, and sometimes the only contact the public has with the police department. The importance of adequate staffing., deployment, supervision and training for patrol can hardly be overemphasized. A definitive means for determining the optimum number of officers who should be assigned to the law enforcement function has yet to be developed. Among the reasons for this is the fact that there is no way of determining the optimum number of staff-hours necessary for preventive patrol coverage. An Iequitable distribution of enforcement strength by time and area can nevertheless be achieved with reasonable precision. 16 I. Two steps are required to achieve this objective. The first task is to identify the number of posts required. Once that is done. the specific staffing requirements can be calculated. Determining the Necessary Number of Patrol Posts I The Formula Two variables largely determine the number of officers who are necessary to staff the patrol force adequately: The number of calls for service for a given period of time (from which the number of patrol posts can be identified); and the average length of time that each officer is available for duty 1 on a yearly basis. Utilizing a formula developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP], the following stepsaretaken. 1. The total calls for service for each tour of duty are obtained for the previous year for both Mamaroneck and Larchmont. A call for service is not limited to a complaint in the department's record system. Rather, it includes any instance in which an officer is dispatched to provide service or initiates activity (for example, a traffic stop). ?. The twelve-month total is multiplied by the average time required to respond to a call for service and complete the preliminary investigation. This provides the number of hours per year spent in handling calls for service. Previous studies have shown that the average time required to respond and investigate adequately at the preliminary level by members of a patrol force is thirty minutes (.50 hours). Only in very rural areas served by small departments is a longer response time of 45 minutes used.' 'At one time BMP used the longer forty-five minute figure for all staffing studies we were asked to undertake. However, as more police departments implemented CAD systems (Computer Aided Dispatch Systems) in the 1980's, actual figures provided to BMP indicated an average time spent on calls as closer to thirty minutes. Again. this is the period from the patrol receiving the call until they have cleared the call and are back in service. In a response to BMP's preliminary study, both Chiefs Keresey and Rivera thought that forty-five minutes was more accurate. However, BMP does not agree with the chiefs on this issue nor do we feel that their position was substantiated. The two chiefs responses to the preliminary report appear in their entirety in the appendix of this report. 17 I The chart that follows depicts the workload of both police departments on all three work shifts and combines them to indicate the work load of a consolidated police department. Actual Calls for Service Shift Town of Village of Mamaroneck Larchmont Total Police Police Nights 2,073. 3,285 5,358 Days 6,300 4,745 11,045 Afternoons 5,337 4,745 10,082 I The totals were then multiplied by .50 hours (30 Minutes) to get the average time expended by officers on calls over the year. Shift Approximate Time Expended By Both Departments Nights 2,679 hrs Days 5,522 hrs Afternoons 5,337 hrs These figures were converted to include a buffer and time for routine and/or directed patrol activity (x 3). • 18 I, II Shift Projected Time Expended By Both Departments I Nights 8,037 hrs I Days 16,566 hrs Afternoons 15,123 hrs I Next, these numbers are divided by 2,920, which represents the total jhours required to fill an eight-hour post for one year (365 x 8 = 2,920). Shift Minimum Post needed Adjusted I Nights 2.7 5 3 Days 5.67 6 IAfternoons 5.17 1 Altogether, a consolidated police department would thus require 14 posts. 1 The above figure of fourteen indicates the number of patrols that are minimally required to undertake the call for service load of both the town and the village. The night shift post was adjusted from 2.75 to a minimum of 3 i because the balance of the workload is generally skewed toward the beginning of this particular shift. BMP's experience indicates that the midnight shift 1 produces some of the more dangerous types of calls and that many of the people whom the police see on these calls are intoxicated. While statistics Ishow that the LarchmontiNfamaroneck area is relatively safe in terns of crime: assaults on police officers can take place in any jurisdiction. BvIP also took into consideration the size and nature of the jurisdiction and how these factors impact call response times. 1 1 19 1 16. .mmummesmimi Patrol Staffing Requirements The formula Once the total number of patrol posts for each tour of duty is determined, the next step is to ascertain the staff needed to fill these posts adequately. This coverage cannot be achieved by simply assigning one officer for each post. Consideration must be given to those factors which make an officer unavailable for duty. These factors include regular days off, vacations, sick leave, personal leave, holidays and other factors which affect an officer's availability for patrol duty. The maximum potential working time for each officer would be three hundred sixty-five days a year of eight-hour shifts, or 2,920 hours (365 x 8). From department records, an average figure is determined for each factor specified in the preceding paragraph. The sum of these averages will show the average time in a year that each officer is unavailable for duty. This is subtracted from 2,920 hours to give the number of hours that are actually available. The hours available are then divided into 2,920 hours to yield the assignment/availability factor. Multiplying this factor by the number of necessary posts will identify the number of officers needed to staff the required posts. The data contained in the chart on page twenty-one used to calculate the number of required personnel were submitted by the Mamaroneck Police Department. These numbers were used rather than an average of the Larchmont and Mamaroneck figures because union contracts and agency policies governing relevant practices at the two agencies may differ. Larchmont, for example, provided twice as much in-service training as Mamaroneck in 1995. If a merger does occur, it will probably be under the auspices of the town, so practices impacting officer availability at the Mamaroneck Police Department may be more representative of what can be expected under a consolidated police force. We have therefore used figures from the Town of Mamaroneck to make the following determinations. 20 k. 1 1 Factor I Number of Days x 8 = Staff Hours 1 Regular Days Off 113.1 904.8 Vacation 23 184 Personal Leave 4.07 32.56 I Sick/Injury I 23.32 186.56 l Military Leave I .35 2.8 � Court Time [on duty] 2.07 16.56 iCompensatory Time 4 32 Training 4.97 39.76 Holidays 3.9 31.2 Other .17 1.36 Total 178.95 1,431.6 The resulting. figure, 1,431.6, represents the approximate average number of hours that an officer would probably be unavailable for duty each year in a consolidated Larchmontitilamaroneck police department. If this number is subtracted from the basic staff year of 2,920 staff hours, the difference would represent the total hours that an officer is available for duty. Available hours would be increased if sick/injury time were reduced. It is BMP's opinion that an average of 23.2 days of sick time per officer is excessive and Mamaroneck officials should explore ways (incentives etc.) to lower this average whether or not consolidation occurs. Hours in Staff Year Average Hours Off Hours Available 2,920 -1,431.6 1,488.4 The 2,920 hours in a staff-year are then divided by the hours available to calculate the assignment/availability factor. This factor will be used to determine the total number of personnel needed to fill patrol posts which are required by the workload of the agency. 21 Total Hours in Staff Hours Available Assignment / Year ` Availability Factor 2, 920 1.488.4 1.96 The calculations indicate that it would require 1.96 sworn personnel to fill each of the patrol posts determined previously. The following chart combines the 1.96 assignment/availability factor with the number of patrol posts required using a .50 preliminary investigation time factor. Shift Posts Assignment' = Number of Actual Required Availability Sworn personnel Factor Personnel required Nights 3 1.96 5.88 6 Days 6 1.96 11.26 12 Afternoons 5 1.96 9.80 10 Adjusted. this amounts to 28 uniformed personnel who would be required to respond to calls for service in a consolidated town/village police department. This is the minimum number necessary to undertake the combined call for service load of the two agencies. Another issue that must be considered is the fact that Larchmont and Mamaroneck have a total of five schools where approximately three hundred students participate in the D.A.R.E. Program each year. We thus recommend that a 29th uniformed officer be designated to continue this important community initiative. The D.A.R.E. officer will be available to support other community efforts and/or strengthen the patrol function when not needed in the class room. The number of officers recommended above does not include desk/dispatch personnel, supervisory personnel, or investigators. Staffing for these positions will be discussed in subsequent sections of the report. It should also be noted that the figure does not take into consideration staffing for 22 these positions will be discussed in subsequent sections of the report. It should also be noted that the figure does not take into consideration staffing for specialized patrols such as traffic enforcement and foot patrols. Additional police officers would be required to deploy these specialized patrols. Desk/Dispatch Posts In addition to the officers who are needed to respond to calls for service, a department must have an additional post for desk/dispatch duty on each shift. If a police officer is used, the additional post requires 1.96 rounded up to two additional officers for each shift when one takes the availability factor into account. This means that six additional officers would be required to staff the desk around the clock. Those six officers, added to the twenty-nine who have already been recommended, increase the minimum number of sworn officers required to staff the patrol function to thirty-five. However, it is important to note in this context that the desk/dispatch function is performed by civilian employees in many areas of New York State outside Westchester County. Civilians are considerably less expensive to hire and train, and once experienced, can legally perform all of the desk/dispatch functions that a sworn officer can do with the exception of taking bail. (A police supervisor is dispatched to the station to take bail as the need arises in departments that assign civilians to the desk). Civilians may also have a greater availability factor than sworn officers because of the differences in their contracts and because they are less likely to experience job-related injuries or be needed in court. Consequently, it may be possible to cover the two desk posts in Larchmont/Nlamaroneck with five civilians rather than six officers. NYS Unconsolidated Laws §571 l-q and Chapter 104 of the Laws of 1936 state that sworn officers must be used to perform the desk/dispatch function of villages and towns respectively in Westchester County. However, 1985, the Attorney General opined that UL, §571 l-q was a special act, rather than a general law, and that it could be superseded by a village's exercise of home rule power to enact a local law to the contrary (Op. Arty. Gen.[infj 85- 60). Thus it appears that a civilian could be used in this position. Copies of the laws and the Attorney General's opinion are contained in Appendix G. 23 I Larchmont and Mamaroneck officials may wish to have their attorneys explore the possibility of enacting a local law that would permit the assignment of civilians to desk-duty positions. BMP believes that if the desk officer position were civilianized, a consolidated police department would need twenty-seven patrol officers rather than the thirty-three stated above. Again, it would require the hiring and training of six civilians to staff the 1 desk/dispatch function. Patrol Supervision Sufficient numbers of properly trained supervisors, especially first line supervisors (sergeants), for police personnel is always critical-especially in today's litigious society. Many of,,the claims brought against the police stem from the failure to supervise subordinate personnel. Thus it has been a long- standing policy of the Bureau for Municipal Police to recommend that an adequate number of supervisory personnel be assigned to provide around the clock supervision, especially in the critical area of patrol. In a consolidated Town Village Police Department, BMP recommends that a lieutenant serve as the commanding officer of the Patrol Division. Under the lieutenant's supervision, there should be six patrol sergeants, two of whom would be assigned to each shift. This should ensure that there will be a supervisor working at all times. In addition, the patrol sergeants would also be available to provide back-up on calls and also answer calls for service when needed as is currently done in both departments. Criminal Investigations Staffing 1 The Town of Mamaroneck Police Department currently assigns one 1 sergeant and four investigators to the criminal investigation,function. In Larchmont, this function is handled by one sergeant and two investigators who also process arrests and handle court security, prisoner transportation. and taxi licenses. 24 In most medium to large police departments in the United States, ten to twenty percent of sworn personnel are typically assigned to the criminal investigations section.' This distribution is consistent with a "rule of thumb" recommendation by the International Association of Chiefs of Police that about ten percent of all sworn personnel be assigned to the investigative function. BMP recommends that a consolidated MamaroneckiLarchmont police department assign a detective sergeant to oversee the investigative function. BMP further recommends that a staff of five detectives and a juvenile officer would be sufficient to handle the investigative workload, a personnel savings of one sergeant and one investigator. Administrative Division BMP recommends that the Town police maintain its Administrative Division under a lieutenant's command if consolidation occurs. This division would be responsible for staff functions such as records, training, police aids, crossing officers, and parking enforcement personnel. Other personnel assigned to this unit would include one sergeant to assist the lieutenant with supervisory responsibilities and other tasks, civilians already on staff in Mamaroneck and Larchmont as well as any police or civilian dispatch personnel. The Agency as a Whole Altogether, a consolidated agency would thus need a total of fifty-two sworn personnel including a chief of police. The force would be three- fourth's (76%) the size of the current combined strength of the Larchmont and Mamaroneck Police Departments. The chart below demonstrates how the agency might be organized. °John Eck and Gerald Williams, "Criminal Investigations", in Local Government Police Management,ed. By William Geller, Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1991, pp.131-156. 25 The Agency as a Whole IAltogether. a consolidated agency would thus need a total of fifty-two sworn personnel including_ a chief of police. The force would be three- fourth's (76%) the size of the current combined strength of the Larchmont and Mamaroneck Police Departments. The chart below demonstrates how the agency might be organized. Chief Patrol Division Investigative Division Administration (N = 36 officers) (N = 7 officers) (N = 8 officers) 1 Lieutenant 1 Detective Sergeant 1 Lieutenant 1 6 Sergeants 5 Detectives 1 Sergeant 6 Police 29 Officers 1 Juvenile Officer Dispatchers Tentative Costs The Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont currently allocate a total of S4,897,450 for police services. The combined appropriation for personnel (excluding fringe benefits) accounts for 54,646,355, or about ninety-five percent of this figure. Most, if not all civilian personnel currently employed by the Larchmont and Mamaroneck Police Departments would have to be retained in order to maintain current service levels in parking_ enforcement, school crossings, etc. The greatest potential savings in personnel costs would thus stem from the reduction in sworn personnel which may be controversial to some residents. The projected cost of staffing a consolidated department can only be approximated; a true budget can be prepared after it is known how many individuals will be retained and what their salaries will be. An approximate breakdown using average salaries offered by the Mamaroneck Police Department in 1995 appears on pace 27. 26 y.Y: Chief: 571,200 S 71,200 • '= 2 Lieutenants ,a; 566,195 132,390 t-� 8 sergeants @ 563,415 507,320 _-„" 5 detectives @ 556,950 284,750 1 juvenile officer a 556,950 56,950 35 officers 2. 553,670 1,878.450 fz_ 52,931,060 'rs A consolidated agency consisting of fifty-two officers rather than the sixty-eight who are now employed will thus save Larchmont and Mamaroneck a-4,r almost 5967,000 in annual line-item personnel expenditures. Mamaroneck officials advised BMP that fringe benefits cost approximately forty percent of r an officer's salary, moreover, so a reduction of sixteen officers would generate additional annual savings in excess of 5385,000. Other savings in salary and a nnuabenefits can be obtained by replacing sworn dispatchers with civilians regardless of whether or not theagenciesare consolidated. Specifically, the W;' tentative personnel savings are depicted in the following chart using Town of } Mamaroneck salary figures with the exception of the captain's position, which • the Town does not have. The captain's position is according to Larchmont figures. "h. Chief: 571,200 571,200 Captain 570,590 70,590 2 Lieutenants :a S66,195 132,390 5 Sergeants a. 563,415 317,075 7 Police Officers 553,670 375.690 ? Total salary: 5966,945 Fringe @ 40% 5386,778 Total savings: 51,353,723 BMP believes that the citizens of each community' should choose the type and level of policing they desire. Our examination of the situation in Mamaroneck/Larchmont leads us to believe that consolidation of the two agencies into one town department is feasible and that it would save taxpayers 27 . bstyntial amount of money. More detailed information is provided later in • 1 report. • • Need If the Town of Mamaroneck assumed responsibility to provide law =`. ciaforcement services in the Village of Larchmont, the office space now being utilized by the Larchmont Police Department could be used for other purposes. The Mamaroneck Police Department, on the other hand, would have to find r' room for extra lockers, file cabinets, etc. Space in Mamaroneck's facility is already quite tight, but Chief Rivera advised BMP staff that there is room to expand in the Town Government Building. Adequate space could be a concern, however, of which officials must be aware. �Y tiS tom: i rt�j F: a�j` 28 Arguments for and Against Consolidation in Larchmont and Mamaroneck • " Previous sections of this report have attempted to provide an overview of how a consolidated police department serving Mamaroneck and Larchmont might be staffed and organized. The report has also identified several relevant financial issues that merit consideration, as well as a general discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation. This section of the report will outline some of the arguments for and against consolidation specific to 7. Larchmont and Mamaroneck. Arguments Supporting Consolidation. 1. A consolidated agency would produce substantial savings for taxpayers in Larchmont and Mamaroneck. BMP estimates that consolidation will result in annual savings totaling about 51,350,000 while still providing a sufficient number of police officers in the two communities. 2. Consolidation does not appear to be difficult to accomplish from a legal perspective. The Village of Larchmont could abolish the Larchmont Police Department through a village resolution. 3. Consolidation makes sense from a geographic perspective. The village covers just one square mile and is located entirely within the Town of Mamaroneck. Total patrol coverage for the Town police would be slightly larger but could still be easily managed. 4. Consolidation should result in better coordination of law enforcement services. Officers would work for one police department under a single set of policies, procedures and rules of conduct. Disadvantages of Consolidation 1. Larchmont officials may feel that they have lost a sense of control over "their.' police department. Political leaders and citizens of the Village may have less say in the operation of a consolidated department, and 29 personalized services which are currently provided by Village officers may not be offered by the Town Police Department. In addition, Larchmont may lose a sense of "community identity" after its police force is blended with the Mamaroneck Police Department. 1. The data presented to BMP indicates that the workload is fairly evenly distributed between the Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck. Because of twenty-five percent lower overall staffing levels, fewer proactive patrols will be available to serve both the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont, following consolidation. 3. A substantial number of career police officers could lose their jobs. 30 V. Alternatives to Full Consolidation In a previous section of this report, it was noted that certain police functions can be combined as an alternative to full agency consolidation. Limited consolidation of this type is fairly common, especially in the area of training. Many departments do not have their own trainers or appropriate training facilities, and much of the formal training in Westchester County is done at the Westchester County Police Academy. Communications is another area in which functions are often consolidated. Westchester has already adopted an E-911 system, for example, thereby consolidating emergency communications throughout the County. BMP is of the opinion that Mamaroneck and Larchmont could consolidate their desk/dispatch functions as ah alternative to full consolidation. At the present time, both departments are considered primary answering points in the Westchester 911 system. Having the Town dispatch for the Village police would permit Larchmont to either deploy more patrols or eliminate up to six officer positions. Depending_ upon how much Larchmont pays Mamaroneck for this service, consolidating, the dispatch function could save Larchmont taxpayers more than a quarter of a million dollars every year if the six positions were eliminated. Larchmont police officials have advised BMP that they have reservations about consolidating, the dispatch function. Their primary concern focused on the department's ability to keep abreast of law enforcement activities in the Village without its own dispatch operation. BMP does not foresee a problem in this regard because computerized record keeping would allow the Town police to provide Larchmont with accurate periodic records of all activity within the Village. Larchmont could obtain additional savings by staffing the police station with a civilian during business hours from Monday to Friday. This individual 31 would handle walk-in complaints and provide other services such as giving citizens copies of accident reports. A call box could be mounted in front of '- l--- headquarters to assist citizens who stop at the station during off-hours. The phone would ring into Town police headquarters, and a Larchmont officer would be dispatched to respond in the same fashion as any other complaint. If a person were arrested and lodged in a temporary holding cell, an officer could be brought into the station until the prisoner has been released on bail or transferred to the Westchester County Jail. BMP strongly recommends that the Town of Mamaroneck consider civilianizing its desk/dispatch positions if this function is consolidated. Civilians cost less than sworn personnel and can be trained to perform nearly all of the necessary functions of a desk officer. These jobs include handling telephone complaints, dispatching officers and other emergency personnel, monitoring prisoners in their cells, operating teletype machines, and dealing with walk-in inquiries. The civilian could radio an officer to return to the station when bail is being posted or if there is some type of trouble that requires a uniformed response. _t.- VI. CONCLUSION The Bureau for Municipal Police does not take an official position for or against the consolidation of police services in Larchmont and Mamaroneck. Strong arguments can be made on both sides of this issue and local officials are in the best position to determine what form of policing best meets community needs and expectations. Consolidation of some type nevertheless appears to warrant further consideration. The unification of police services in these two jurisdictions would result in substantial savings while simultaneously providing an adequate level of law enforcement protection. BMP recommends that a joint Town/Village committee be formed to discuss this report thoroughly and recommend appropriate action. 33 },r I 1 I I I Appendix A I Administrative Study Checklists � r I I i j 1 I , ,,,,,..z . . . .• . 1 .....j. Bureau o M p 1 •uttt*au rat Technical S UnittltlJt�CM Al POUCI StudyCheck1istAdministrative IName of Department: Mamaroneck Town Police i ' Person Completing Survey Lt Robert Koziak Phone N°014) 381-6100 � Ili y,,4, i. i r, ttlllly t . . 'Jr r. /TI • £i/, J..-; ^Y,.b)'cv3"fCl6N... yr='4'e� `.0:Y� S.�i�.�.li-R9'a :�,c`.� xe.Yt�C.a r+�'r.<w,.�.. +s. mow.,wwtiL� 3' I Type: 0 City ® Town 0 Village 0 County 0 Other Population: 1970 - 13,002 1980 - 12,428 1990 - 11 ,231 ISquare Miles of Area: 6. 7 Square Hiles Miles of Roadway: 36 Miles " Palmer Avenue 1`iajor Highways [list]: Boston Post Road - Myrtle Blvd. - Weaver Street ToPogT P Ya h : 0 Mountains M Flat ® Lakes ® Hilly E] Rivers General Description of Area: 0 Commercial 0 Residential ® Both j Town: $284.60 Tax Rate per $1,000: school:#305.78 Dates of Fiscal Year: 1/1/95 12/31/95 >. <�a.�.:`a; .�..�y.<..,...:. >�,..�.:,;•,.--fx,,=::.,W.W. 1:11t:i.e.:17;49g4railirtrefOri z.�nel.. .,�.<.,k•d►.34.:ts>.•,.c. mac.i List Current Budget and the Four Preceding Years: I 1991 - 2,062,490 1993 - 2,522, 150 1995 - 2,536,435 1992 - 2,438,300 1994 - 2,574,750 1 List Salary:$71,200*- Chief $66, 195 - Lieutenant $63,415 - Sergeant 199453,678 Police Officer N/A - Dispatcher N/A - Clerk Typist , Number of Sworn Personnel: 40 - Full Time - Part Time Number of Civilian Personnel: I - Full Time - Part Time I Number & Ranks of Officers Assigned to Uniform Patrol: N/A - Captain 3 - Lieutenant 6 - Sergeant 25 - Police Officer i AverageNumberof Patrols Deployed1 perppShiifi:** 1 Supervisor P 8-4: 3 a?eoYi�osts 4-12: 3 Pstroliosts 12-8: 3 Patrol Posts i Work Schedule Cycle: 0 5-2 0 4-2 ® 5-3 0 Other * 1994 Salary- 1995 currently being negotiated for Chief. ** 8-4 Tour has a DARE Officer during School Year. -1- 5 8-4 5 12-8 Are Shifts Rotated: 9 Yes 0 No Describe Rotation: 5 4-12 Number & Rank of Personnel Assigned to Criminal Investigation Function: - Captain - Lieutenant 1 - Sergeant - Detective Average Caseload per Investigator: What Work Shifts are Investigators 1994 - 167 oer Investigator Assigned: 8-4/4-12 • How is Desk/Dispatch Staffed? ZI Sworn Officer 0 Civilian Is Police Station Staffed 24hrs? fl Yes 0 No If No, Who Dispatches for Department? on :. �,r �• List Number, Rank and Function of all other Personnel: Chief of Police Secretary to Chief of Police Ce F • \�` ..h e•6`R„ - J 's . >.",<. aoa ,.-.�>:E...ve.4+ev, 'r.,...r-.' -�....-K.<.e�.— s�a.,�. .. .-aaai List Total Part I Crimes reported and closed for the past 5 Years: CRIMES REPORTED (UCR) : 1 ,536 CRIMES CLOSED (UCR) : 88 List Total Part II Crimes reported and closed for the past 5 years: CRIMES REPORTED (UCR) : 1,201 CRIMES CLOSED (UCR) : 243 List total calls for service on each work shift for the last calendar year or the previous 12 months: PO-4661 PC-1 ,541 - Days y1 Po-1 , 130 - Afternoons Ply-743 - Nights Z v�_2 Oq ys 2 20-1 _P14 Note: A call for service is defined as any complaint or request to which an officer is dispatched. It includes any activity generated by an officer while on patrol, including traffic stops, which necessitates the officer calling out of service. Includes multiple officer responses (each response equals one call for service). It does not include administrative activity such as station house errands etc. _ �. a..� - .,{ -x� xw ��.,,g r� r ,+c...�j,,� •�`y �� ,ey�7 1. Department Policy Manual 2. Collective Bargaining Agreement 3. Department Organizational Chart 4. Spot Map of Municipality (optional) Map depicting location of three months of calls for service. Needed if the Executive wants the study to include geographical patrol sectors. -2- Stifling Leveli biforTlition ;: .....__. In determining staffing levels, BMP will first ascertain the necessary number of posts required. based on the department's call for service workload. Once the number of posts has been determined, the total number of officers required to fill these posts must be computed. This is accomplished by calculating the Assignment/Availability Factor. In order to complete the Assignment/Availability Factor, we need the following information. From your department records determine for all sworn personnel the average number of staff-hours taken from normal duty during the past IT months for each of the following factors: ( 1994) Number of Days Number of Hrs. Regular Days Off 113. 1 DAYSx8 hrS. = 904.8 us. Vavation 23 DAYSxS hrs. = 184 HRS. Personal Leave 4.075 DAYS x8 hrs. = 32.6 MRs. * Sick/Injury ( 15. 9/7.425)DAYSXS hrS. = 186. 6 HRS. Military Leave .35 DAYSXS h S. = 2. 8 HRS. Holidays 3.9 DAYS x8 hrs. = 31 . 2 HRS. Compensatory Time 4 DAYSXS hrs. = 32 HRS. Court Time (on duty) 2.071 DAYSXS hIS. = 16. 575HRS. ** Training 4.975 DAYS x8 hrs. = 39.8 HRS. Other vPSA Days . 175 DAYS x8 hrs. = 1 .4 HRS. Totals 178.971 DAYSx8 hrs. = 1431. 775 HRS. Note: This is a determination of average per officer. As an example, if your department has 15 sworn personnel and they use a total of 279 vacation days, the average per person would be 18.6 days (279 days/15 persons = 18.6 days). To change the average number of days to hours, multiply by 8 to get 148.8. Mail to: Division of Criminal Justice Services Bureau for Municipal Police Executiver Park Tower Stuyvesant Plaza Albany, New York 12203-3764 * AVERAGE INCLUDES TWO OFFICERS OUT SICK FOR ENTIRE YEAR PLUS ONE OFFICER OUT INJURED FOR 9 MONTHS. ** AVERAGE INCLUDES OFFICER SENT TO FBI NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR 11 (ELEVEN) WEEK COURSE. -3- . .., aijBreau tumuu ow Technical Supt Unitrot....wtmm Administrative Study •Checklist NarneofDepartrnent: VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT , NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMEN Person Completing Survey: L . Stephen D . Rube . Phone N° 914-834 - 1000 l iunicip2l Iiifo Type: 0 City 0 Town rfrlhlidtt Village 0 County 0 Other Population: 1970 - 7 , 203 1980 - 7 , 600 1990 - 6 , 181 Square Miles of Area: 1 . 0 6 Miles of Roadway: 24 Major Highways [list]: U . S . Route 41 , Interstate I-95 Topography: 0 Mountains )0 Flat* 0 Lakes 0 Hilly 0 Rivers General Description of Area: 0 Commercial Residential ** 0 Both Tax Rate per S1,000: 1 6 7 . 4 5 Dates of Fiscal Year: June I to May 3 Police Depa rirnent Infarna List Current Budget and the Four Preceding Years: _ ._. See addendum List Salary: - Chief - Lieutenant See a d d e n d zoPOl1Ce Officer - Sergeant - Dispatcher - Clerk Typist Number of Sworn Personnel: 28 - Full Time o - Part Time Number of Civilian Personnel: 14 - Full Time 5 - Part Time Number & Ranks of Officers Assigned to Uniform Patrol: 1 - Captain i - Lieutenant 5 - Sergeant 17 - Police Officer Average Number of Patrols Deployed per Shift: 3 - Nights 3 - Days 3 - Afternoons 'fork Schedule Cycle: Ox5-2 *** 0 4-2 0 5-3 0 Other * - Jurisdiction abutted on southern boundary by Atlantic Ocean /Longan **- Comprised of 2 small commericial districts withaggregate of °�n� 350 businesses * **- Work schedule 5 days on , 72 hni,re '. Cc -�- one week day tours , one w. Are Shifts Rotated: CI Yes No Describe Rotation: afternoons , one week nigh Number & Rank of Personnel Assigned to Criminal Investigation Function: - Captain - Lieutenant - Sergeant 2 - Detective Average Caseload per Investigator: What Work Shifts are Investigators 55 Cases per month .assigned: roaring days and afternoons F Communications How is Desk/Dispatch Staffed? fa Sworn Officer CI Civilian Is Police Station Staffed 24hrs? xQ Yes D No If No, Who Dispatches for Departnent? Additional Personnel. List Number, Rank and Function of all other Personnel: See addendum Departmental Workload List Total Part I Crimes reported and closed for the past 5 Years: 1 , 199 reported 58 closed List Total Part II Crimes reported and closed for the past 5 years: 1 , 412 reported 335 closed List total calls for service on each work shift for the last calendar year or theaprevious 12 months: 3 , 2 8 5 - Nights , , 7 4 5 - Days 4 , 7 4 5 - Afternoons Note: A call for service is defined as any complaint or request to which an officer is dispatched. It includes any activity generated by an officer while on patrol, including traffic stops, which necessitates the officer calling out of service. Includes multiple officer responses (each response equals one call for service). It does not include administrative activity such as station house errands etc. E. Ad itionalInformation Needed.. _. ".".-. 1. Department Policy Manual 2. Collective Bargaining Agreement 3. Department Organizational Chart 4. Spot Map of Municipality (optional) Map depicting location of three months of calls for service. Needed if the Executive wants the study to include geographical patrol sectors. N/A -2- Staffing Levels Information In determining staffing levels, BMP will first ascertain the necessary number of posts required, based on the department's call for service workload. Once the number of posts has been determined, the total number of officers required to fill these posts must be computed. This is accomplished by calculating the Assignment/Availability Factor. In order to complete the Assig:unent'Availabiiity Factor, we need the following information. From your department records determine for all sworn personnel the average number of staff-hours taken from normal duty during the past 12 months for each of the following factors: Number of Days Number of Hrs. Re g'alar Days Off - 1 1 6 x8 hrs. = 9 z 8 Vavation 22 . 3 x8 hrs. = 173 . 4 Personal Leave 5 • 6 4 x8 hrs. = 4 s . Sick/Injury 17 . 54 x8 hrs. = 14 I . I Military Leave o x8 hrs. = o Holidays 0 x8 his. = 0 Compensatory Time 2 . 3 X$ hrs. = 4 2 . 3 Court Time (on duty) s . o x8 hrs. = 40 . 0 Training 9 . 7 x8 hrs. _ 77 . 6 Other o x8 hrs. = o Totals 178 . 5 ^ 8 hrs. = 1428 . 64 Note: This is a determination of average per officer. As an example, if your department has 15 sworn personnel and they use a total of 279 vacation days, the average per person would be 18.6 days (279 days/15 persons = 18.6 days). To change the average number of days to hours, multiply by 8 to get 148.8. Mail to: Division of Criminal Justice Services Bureau for Municipal Police Executiver Park Tower Stuyvesant Plaza Albany, New York 12203-3764 -3- ADDENDUM TO B.M.P. .ADMLNISTR.ATIvE STUDY CHECKLIST Larchmont Village Budget: 1995-1996 $2,051 ,295 1994-1995 2,030,650 1993-1994 1 ,780,050 1992-1993 1 ,716,650 1991 -1992 1 ,705,950 Current Salaries Chief $80.615 Captain 70,590 Lieutenant 68,222 Sergeant 60,753 Detective 55,164 Police Officer 26,000 - 52,472 Other Personnel and Salaries 1 - Clerk typist $31 ,685 1 - Laborer, part time 6,500 2 - Parking Enforcement Officers/Full time 26,640 - 28,720 1 - Parking Enforcement Officers/Part time 9.00 @ hour 5 - Police Aides 9.00 - 11 .00 @ hour 6 - School Crossing Guards/Full time 37.00 per diem 3 - School Crossing Guards/Part time 9.25 @ hour 1. l I i 1 I Appendix B Copy of agreement for police services between the Village of Lake George and Warren County 1 I 1 1 1 EXECUTION COPY 1 AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF LAKE GEORGE T'7i:E AGREEMENT made as of the 1st day of January , 1988 , by Iand between the COUNTY CF WARREN , a municipal corporation 1 organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York , having its principal office and place of business a: the Warren County Municipal Centr , in the Town of Queensbury , New York ( the "County") and VILLAGE OF LAKE GEORGE, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York , having its principal office at Amherst Street in the Village of Lake George , New York ( the "Village" ) , W:TNESSETH: WHEREAS , the Village Board of the Village of Lake George intends to reduce the Village Police Department as of the 31st day of December , 1987 , and rely primarily on the Warren County Sheriff for police protection in the Vil_age , and WHEREAS , the Village of Lake George is a seasonal resort whose population changes dramatically throughout the year , and a known need exists for additional police protection above and beyond that which the Village of Lake George intends to provide , and WHEREAS , providing such additional police protection by the County will require a considerably greater outlay of money , manpower and equipment than that usually and normally provided by the County through its Sheriff ' s Department , and EXECUTION COPY WHEREAS , the Village has offered to turn over to the County all of its police related equipment used by the Village e _n the operation of the 'v'illaae Police Depar- and meet , WHEREAS , the Village has offeredto leaseCoun:y to the aunty the existing Village Police Station for use by the County for a nominal consideration , and WHEREAS , the Village has offered toa p y to the County for such additional services in the Village , and the County indicated its willingness to provide such additional services in consideration as set forth in this Agreement , NOW, THEREFORE , IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS : 1 The County of Warren through the Warren County Sheriff' s Department agrees to provide additional Law Enforcement to the Vile Ee in accordance with and subject to the terms of this Agreement . I . DELIVERY OF SERVICES : A. Service Ara The County , through its Sheriff ' s Department , shall provide law enforcement protection within the physical boundaries of the Village as well as in all areas of the County of Warren. 3 . Enforcement Responsibilities The County, through its Sheriff as the conservator cf the peace within the County , shall provide police protection to all of the Villages and Towns in the County, and shall provide such additional forces in the Village as may be required . -2- EXECUTION COPY I. C . guant _ Y of Services The County shall provide 24 hours of law enforcement protection in the Village seven ( 7 ) days per week during the term of this Agreement . D . How Delivered The County shall provide a minimum of four ( 4 ) 1 i patrol officers to patrol the Village year-round. During the initial summer tourist season , a minimum of eighteen ( 18) part-time patrol officers shall be employed to handle traffic control and foot patrol law enforcement services within the Village . Thereafter , an adequate number to maintain sufficient and adequate coverage . E . Service Management • The scheduling , direction and supervision of the Sheriff' s Department personnel and those matters incident to the delivery of additional_ law enforcement services to the Village shall be determined by the Sheriff . Responsiveness The Sheriff shall give prompt consideration to all requests of the Village regarding the delivery - of law enforcement services . The Sheriff shall comply with these requests if they are consistent with good law enforcement practices and within the scope of this Agreement . G . Dispute Resolution Any conflict between the parties regarding the extent or manner of performance of the additional Law enforcement services -3- EXECUTION COPY dellivered to the Village shall be resolved by the Charman of the 3card c= Supervisors the Sherif: and Communications Committee , the Sheriff and the Mayor o: the Village or his Designee . II . RESC'.7RCES : A. Rescons biiities All present fixed assets owned by the Village , except twc (2) Honda motor-scooters , shall be turned over to the use and complete control of the County. If , however , the Village cancels the proposed contract during the first three (3 ) years of contract , all of the assets so itemized shall be returned to the Village as near as practical , with exceptions of any patrol automobiles . The Village shall initially provide two ( 2) used patrol cars fully equipped with G. E . cMobile Radios , sirens , roof lights and other related equipment . One ( 1 ) car being a 1986 Dodge and the other being a 1987 Plymouth , three ( 3 ) 12 gauge shotguns , twenty-three ( 23 ) . 38 caliber handguns , one ( 1) . 357 magnum handgun , cameras , eight ( 8 ) bullet proof vests , three (3 ) breathalyzers , one ( 1) alco-sensor, one ( 1 ) VCR camera and recorder, one ( 1 ) copy machine , handcuffs , -leather gear , nightsticks , all radios and radio related equipment as purchased through the Mobile District Grant in 1987 , and assorted office equipment and furniture . The present Lake George Village Police Department facility located in the Village Hall shall become a sub-station of the Warren County Sheriff ' s Department . This station would be manned year-round . The Village shall lease to the County the present -4- EXECUTION CO?Y Ipolice station with all the present office furniture and equipment for One Dollar ($1 . 00 ) per year. The Lease Agreement shall be in the form approved by the County and Village Attorneys . The Village shall be responsible for providing all maintenance for the station including heat , lights , cleaning and repairs whether ordinary or structural . The County shall be responsible for telephone charges . The Station shall be for the exclusive use of the Warren County Sheriff' s Department . A Patrol Sergeant shall be assigned by the Sheriff to the 1 Lake George sub-station to supervise over-all operations during the summer season . The Sergeant will be available to assist the Village Board with any problem that may arise that requires a police function. The Village shall retain responsibility for enfeccement of all non-moving parking regulations and shall employ the necessary personnel .to enforce same . The uniforms and head gear issued to Village parking enforcement personnel shall be distinctly different from that of the Warren County Sheriff ' s Department uniforms , both in color and appearance . The Village ' s Chief of Police should not be precluded from enforcing criminal Lai and procedures within the Village in cooperation with the Sheriff . The Village agrees to initiate a study concerning the feasibility of installing traffic signals within the Village , through the Traffic Safety Board of Warren County . A_ the conclusion of the study , a decision will be made subject to :he recommendations and conditions set forth by the Sheriff, the Village Board and the Sheriff ' s Committee . Any costs relative to -5- MMMIMIIIIII EXECUTION COPY the same will be subject co negotiation and cons :dera. ion in the i ' contract . Except as otherwise stipulated , the County shall furnish all labor , equipment and supplies required to provide additional law 1 enforcement services to the Village . T-? PERSONNEL : ._ A. Emeo� vee S a_us _ - 1 . The County agrees to offer and create four (4) additional patrol officer positions within the Sheriff ' s Department effective January 1 , 1988 , to provide such additional police protection in the Village . Present Village officers with ] ' permanent civil service status shall be given exclusive first o rights to those positions , and such employees shall be governed by the collective negotiations contract then in effect for the ! Sheriff' s Department provided that the assignment of such i officers to be stationed in the Lake George sub-station shall be _- in the sole discretion o: the Sherif ; however , said present Village officers will initially 1 v be assigned to the Lake George sub-station and their respective working shifts will be initially ldetermined as to and among each other in ' accordance with the civil service seniority of each, commencing with the date that each of them entered their civil service classification. Saic Jdates are as follows : Edward Litwa January 10 , 1972 i • Gerald Duers January 10 , 1972 Joseph Webster January 10 , 1972 Steve Gates December 18 , 1987 i . -6- 1 • EXECUT_ON COPY For all other purposes except layoff and recall , the da:e cf entry into County service shall be January 1 , 1988 . 2 . For the purposes of layoff and recall with the Sheriff , the said present Village employees ' seniority date will be the date of each employee entered civil service classification , as set forth herein . 3 . The said present Village employees will receive the three (3 ) personal days per year provided for in Article VII? 3 (b) of the "Agreement 3etween the County of Warren and the Deputy Sheriff ' s Unit Warren County Local 857 of the Civil. Service Employees Association , Inc . " (hereinafter referred co as the "Deputy Sheriff ' s Agreement") , without being subject to the waiting periods provided for in Article VIII 3 (d) of said Agreement . u . Effective immediately upon being hired and employed by the County , the said present Village employees will be paid the base salary set forth for Patrol off,' , 5 on Schedule A cf the Deputy Sheriff ' s Agreement , plus the Longevity payments provided for in Article V(2) of said Agreement . The longevity payments for each of the said present Village employees will be calculated by crediting each of them with one full year of service for each year of service as a police officer , either with the Lake George Department or elsewhere . Thus , the County shall credit Litwa with seventeen ( 17) years of longevity ; Duers with seventeen ( 17) years of longevity ; Webster with seventeen ( 17 ) years of longevity ; and Gates with six (6) months of lonzevity . 5 . Each employee shall receive five working days of -7- EXECUTION COPY I vacation during the first year of this Agreement . The Village may , if it desires , purchase from the County an additional f_ve Iworking days cf vacation for said present Village employees , which amcun- shall be calculated a: the rate of pay that said present Village employees are receiving from the County . IV . CONSIDERATION A. Annual Payment 1 The Village shall pay to the County of Warren for the first 1 year of this Agreement the sum of One Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ( $ 135 , 000 . 00 ) for the calendar year 1988 . The sum of One Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($165 , 000 . 00) shall be paid to the County of Warren for calendar year 1989 , One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ( $180 , 000 . 00 ) for calendar years 1990 , 199, , and 1992 , plus any additional cost for part-time deputy sheriffs required in the performance of coverage under this A::::: 0r $55 , 000 . 00 during the preceding year. The remaining four ( 4 ) years of this Agreement shall be adjusted according to the terms of the salary scale as determined • byUnion contract for labor and other changes - in- costs of providing additional law enforcement protection. The adjusted cost shall be agreed on by the Chairman of the Warren County Hoard of Supervisors , the Sheriff and the Mayor of the Village , and during the month of December in each year during the term of this Agreement and shall become effective on the 1st day of • January of the next calendar year next ensuing . -8- EXECUTION COPY 1 . C 3:1 __::z and Payment - - The Village shall pay to the iTreasurer of Warren CC::,.�;' the 1 amounts due as agreed upon herein , in three ( 3 ) equal • July payable to the County on March 1st , Is : and November 1st in each year during the term of this Agreement . D . Delinquency If the Village does ncc make the payments as required herein within thirty ( 30 ) days after the date due , the County of `warren may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30 ) days notice in writing addressed to the Mayor of the Village and delivered by certified mail . V. DURATION: 1 The initial term cf this Agreement shall be for a period of one ( 1) year commencing January 1 , 1988 and ending on December 31 , 1988 . This Azreemett shall renewable for four (4) additional terms of cne ( 1 ) year each, commencing on the 1st day of January in each ensuing year and endinz or. the 31st day e_ December l' in each successive year unless either party shall give following c notice in writing to the other on or before the first day of ICc:ober in each year during the term of this Agreement of its 1 intention not to renew the Agreement . Notice of such intention not to renew shall be addressed to the Mayor of the Village or to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors respectively and served v certified mail . 1 1 1 -9- EXECUTION COPY A. Termination This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties and uccn notice of election not to renew as provided herein . This Agreement is made and executed pursuant co Resolu- tion No . 492 adopted by the Warren County Board of Supervisors on December 18 , 1987 and by Resolution No. 93 adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Lake George on December 15 , 1987 . 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written . 1 WARREN WA Approved as to Form: COUNTY OF; • /, -1;_/,,Z.>,J Chairman of Board or Supervisof Warren County Attorney s VILLAGE OF L- ..GEORGE By (-;/) , Robert M. B1ais -10- 1 • EXECUTION COPY 1. STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss . . COUNTY OF WARREN ) l this �/ ' day of 1 /,rte l98 before me On .-, T^ tome known , whobei. by me d�.._•� v came HA.C:ND ROBERTSON , kno •s p2rsor.al., -�. .. . Isworn , did depose and say that he resides at Cleverdale in the Town of Queensbury , Warren County , New York ; that he is Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Warren and that he executed the foregoing Agreement for and on behalf of the County of Warren by virtue of the authority vested in him as Chairman of the Board of ISupervisors and by and pursuant to a Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of said County , a cop' or which is a ac ed hereto . JAN M. ?ARAMS ' / Pub f New %747/ // / 4 /"4-) Notary pion E pirState February i Notary sub i s I Essex County; . o• :// 1(y Commission Expires FebnsasS+ 28, 1990 1 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss . : COUNTY OF WARREN ) _- ` - 1 t Onhi _hJ 1 subscriber , personally appeared MAYOR ROBERT M. SL Ai` , to me known. who being by me duly sworn , did depose and say that he resides in th 1 Village of Lake George , Warren County , New York ; that he is the Mayo of the Village of Lake George ; and that he executed the foregoin IAgreement for and cn behalf of the Village of Lake George by virtue o the authority vested in him as Mayor and by and pursuant to copy cf whit Resolution c�_ the Board of Trustees of said Village , a 1 is attached hereto . Ni^r` Nevar! 0. ne. Str. .); '.1 �g3 ( Cr Notary Public I . j -11• - i ifflarrzn ( ountU ' II arZi of Prut5or5 RE:5OLUTICN NO. 492 OF 198 �esoluGen Inr,^odtxadby Supervisors Bolton , Waiter, nccan, Demboski, Martin, Tessier and Meade AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY OF WARREN ANC THE VILLAGE OF LAKE GEORGE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES WHEREAS, the Village Board of the Village of Lake George intends to reduce the Village Police Department as of the 31st day of December, 1937, and rely primarily on the Warren County Sheriff for police protection in the Village, and WHEREAS , the Village of Lame George is a seasonal resort whose population changes dramatically throughout the year, and a known need exists for additional police protection above and beyond that which the Village of Lake George intends to provide, and WHEREAS , providing such additional police protection by the County will require a considerably greater outlay of money, manpower and equipment than that usually and normally provided by the County through its Sheriff's Department, and WHEREAS, the Village has offered to turn over to the County all of its police related equipment used by the Village in the operation of the Village Police Department, and WHEREAS, the Village has offered tc lease to the County the existing Village Police station for use by the County for a nominal consideration, and WHEREAS, the Village has offered to pay to the County for such additional services in the Village, and the County has indicated its willingness to provide such additional services in consideration of the Village paying to • 87 RES01.070,v NO. 492 0f19___ 2 .L,• �r:rrlrrurrcl the County the sum Cf One Hundred Thiry-rive Thousand Dollars (5135, 000 .00) during fiscal year 1 :33, One Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Collars ( 555, 000 . 00) during fiscai year 1989, and One Hundred Eighty Thousand Collars ( $180, 000 .00) during fiscal years 1990, 1991 and 1992, plus any additional cost for part-time deputy sheriffs over $55, 000 . 00 during the preceding year, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to enter into an agreement on behalf of the County of Warren with the Viilage of Lake George, effective January 1 , 1988 providing for additional law enforcement services through the Warren County Sneriff`s Department to the Village of Lake George, for an initial term of one ( 1 ) year, renewable for four (4) additional terms of one (1) year each, for the sum of One Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Collars (5135,000.00) during fiscal year 1988, One Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Collars (5155, 000 . 00) during fiscal 1989, One Hundred Eighty Tncusand Dollars ($1 30, 000 .00) during fiscal years 1990, 1991 and 1992, plus any additional cost for part-time deputy sheriffs over $55, 000 .00 during the preceding year, in the form approved by the County Attorney . STATE OF NEVI YORK ) )ss.: COUNTY OF WARREN ) I. HAROLD E. ROBILLARD. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Warren. do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy and the whole thereof of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Warren, Lake George, New York on the 18ch day of December , 19 37. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Board of Superviwrn Ilei, 18th day of December , 19 87. TRUSTEES I. OF LAifF VILLAGE OF LAKE GEORGE, NEW YORK Maetha :Inc �*\. �J 1234S Vincent Iannaco CIIP ,�,w'i— �.,1z: Larry Mancini 1 Cr "tf O' ROBERT M. 3LAiS 3UILV ING INSPECTOR J '".. Mwor Gerald OeVoe �i `' wANOA G. WITT esil 0110 �0-% ` °—* 'P/ ! CI•r,.Tr•••.•., 518-668.5771 \CORP c01Q . CRAT- RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF WARREN FOR LAW IENFORCEMENT SERVICES RESOLUTION NO. 93 IWHEREAS , the Village .of Lake George has agreed to reduce the size of its Police Department effective January 1, 1988 and, I . WHEREAS , the Village of Lake George is a seasonal resort whose population changes dramatically throughout the year , and a known need exists for additional police protection above and beyond that which the Village of Lake George intends to provide and, WHEREAS , the Village of Lake George seeks to provide benefits to 1 the community to insure a savings to the taxpayer , controlled costs , a more highly trained and efficient department, reduce seasonal turnover of personnel , and provide for a higher Quality 1 of health and safety ' in the community and, WHEREAS , the Village of Lake George has offered to pay to the County an amount sufficient to provide such additional services in the Village, and the County has indicated its willingness to provide such additional law enforcement services for additional consideration to be paid by the Village to the County, and WHEREAS , payment shall be in the following amounts : IFirst Year - $135 , 000 Second Year - $165 , 000 Third Year - $180 , 000 plus any additional cost for part 1 time deputy sheriffs over $55 , 000 during the preceding year . Fourth Year - Same as Year 3 1 Fifth Year - Same as Year 3 and 4 WHEREAS , negotiations have been held between the Village of Lake George and the County of Warren , which negotiations have resulted 1 in the formulation of a proposed contract, a copy of the guidelines which is annexed hereto, and 1 WHEREAS , said proposed Contract sets for:h all terms and conditions of the proposed Agreement be-ween the Village of Lake George and the County of Warren relative to said law enforcement 1 services , and I. . __ appears _-at the orcpcsed Contract will- to fa_r and ecuitat_e in al-: respects and --"at enter_ng into such a contract w.th the County cf Warren ,would be .n the best interests of the Village Of Lake George, and will crcmote the health, safety and Wel-_dre C= thi e Villace of Lake Gecr'ze, its citzens and visitors. NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Lake George - enter into Ian Agreement for law enforcement services and that said Agreement contain all terms and provisions, and be in the form annexed hereto, and be it further RESOLVED that the Maycr of the Village of Lake George be hereby authorized to execute said Agreement for law enforcement services between the Village o -f Lake George and the County of Warren on behalf of the Village Of Lake George, when said Contract shall be subject to the approval of the Lake George Village Board. 'Toting: Mayor Robert Slais 6Z -44.1 - Trustee Melv.n Brcwn Trustee Vincent Iannaco Trustee Lawrence Mancini, Jr. Trustee Robert Bruno RESOLUTION NO. 93 ADOPTED. Wanda Witt, Clerk --teas iter Of the Vi? la^ye of Lake George, New fork, do hereby certify that t:,e ferecoing is a true and complete COoy Of Res01',,tion Nc. 93, 198+7, a�0o=ee by the Board,of Trustees of the Village Of Lake George, New York On the /� day o_ December 198 . Iv WITNESS',.c7R- TOF, I he_ eby sign my name and affix the seal of the Village of Lake George, New York this iS day of December 1987. �4Z� Wanda Witt, Clerk -Treasurer I ,, •I l jSTATE OF NEW YORK ) 1 ) COUNTY OF WA.RREv ) ss : i On this /S day of /i^ 19 67 , before me , the subscriber , personally appeared Robert M. Blass , to me personally known , who , being by me duly sworn , did depose and say that he resided in Lake George , New York , that he is the Mayor of the Village of Lake George, New York , the corporation described herein , and which executed the foregoing instrument , that he - knows the seal of said corporation ; that the seal affixed to the 1 said instrument is such corporate seal ; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Trustees , and that he signed his name thereto by like order . . 1 Seal WANDA G. WITi SCLUTxZLX.rr..a?CST rola Notary Public 1104101 CCUITT #4113107 Appendix C Article 5G and 6 of the NYS General Municipal Law I .. 1 MLNICIPAL COOPERATION § 11?—O Art. 5—G 119- o. Performance of municipal cooperative activities; alter- ' native powers 1. In addition to any other general or special powers vested in municipal corporations and districts for the performance of their respective functions, powers or duties on an individual, cooperative, joint or contract basis, municipal corporations and districts shall have power to enter into, amend, cancel and terminate agreements for the performance among themselves or one for the other of their respective functions, powers and duties on a cooperative or contract basis or for the provision of a joint service or a joint water, sewage or drainage project Any agreement entered into hereunder shall be approved by each participating municipal corporation or district by a majority vote of the voting strength of its governing body. Where the authority of any municipal corporation or district to perform by itself any function, power and duty or to provide by itself any facility, service, activity, project or undertaking or the financing thereof is, by any other general or special law, subject to a public hearing, a mandatory or permissive referendum, consents of governmental agencies, or other requirements applicable to the making of contracts, then its right to participate in an agreement hereunder shall be similarly conditioned. 2. An agreement may contain provisions relating to: a. A method or formula for equitably providing for and allocat- ing revenues and for equitably allocating and financing the capital and operating costs, including payments to reserve funds authoriz- ed by law and payments of principal and interest on obligations. Such method or formula shall be established by the parcipating corporators or districts on a ratio of full valuations of real proper- ty, or on the basis of the amount of services rendered or to be rendered., or benefits received or conferred or to be received or conferred, or on any other equitable basis, including the levying of taxes or assessments to pay such costs on the entire area of the corporation or district, or on a part thereof, which is benefited or which receives the service. b. The manner of employing, engaging, compensating, transfer- ring or discharging necessary personnel, subject, however, to the provisions of the civ] service law where applicable; the making of employer's contributions for retirement, social security, health in- surance, workmen's compensation and other similar benefits; the approval of attendances at conventions, conferences and schools for public officials and the approval and payment of travel and other expenses incurred in the performance of official duties; the bond- 5 j 119-0 GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW A rt. 5—G ing of designated officers and employees; the filing of oaths of office and resignacons consistent with general laws applicable thereto; provisions that for specific purposes designated officers or employees of the joint service or a joint water, sewage or drainage project shall be deemed those of a specified participating corpora- tion, or district; and provisions that personnel assigned to a joint service or a joint water, sewage or drainage project shall possess the same powers, duties, immunities and privileges they would ordinarily possess (1) if they performed their duties only in the corporation or district by which they are employed or (2) if they were employed by the corporation or district in which they are required to perform their duties. c. Responsibility for the establishment, operation and mainte- nance of the joint service or joint water, sewage or drainage project and the officers responsible for the immediate supervision and control thereof; the fixing and collecting of charges, rates, rents or fees, where appropriate, and the making and promulgation of necessary rules and regulations and their enforcement by or with the assistance of the participating corporations and districts; the conduct of hearings and the determination of issues raised thereat; the making of necessary inspections; the keeping of records and the making of reports including those required by article three of the general municipal lam; and limitations or restrictions on individ- ual participating corporations and districts from providing or under- taking similar or competing facilities, services, activities, projects, or undertakings. d. Purchasing and making of contracts subject to general laws applicable to municipal corporations and school districts. e. Acquisition. ownership, custody, operation, maintenance, lease or sale of real or personal property. f. Acceptance of gifts, grants or bequests. g. Making of claims for federal or state aid payable to the individual or several participants on account of the joint service or a joint water, sewage or drainage project h. Custody by the fiscal officer of one participant of any or all moneys made available for expenditure for the joint service or a joint water, sewage or drainage project and authorization to such fiscal officer to make payments on audit of the auditing official or body of the participating corporation or district of which he is the fiscal officer. 6 MUNICIPAL COOPERATION 3 119—o Art 5-G i. Manner of responding for any !iabtiit:es that might be in- curred in the operation of the joint service or a joint water, sewage or drainage project and insuring against any such Viability. j. Procedure for periodic review of the terms and conditions of the agreement, including those relating to its duration, extension or termination. k. Adjudication of disputes or disagreements, the effects of failure of participating corporations or districts to pay their shares of the costs and expenses and the rights of the other participants in such cases: 1. Other matters as are reasonably necessary and proper to effectuate and progress the joint service or a joint water, sewage or drainage project m. A municipality may contact with another municipality or with a municipal housing authority of another municipality, for the construction, maintenance, operation or management of a public housing project (Added L.1960, c. 102, § 1; amended L1961, c. 681, § 3; L1971, c. 62, § 1; L.19-72, c. 401, § 1; L1974, c. 236, § 2.) Historical Note 1914 Amendment Subd. 2. par. rn. beginning "In addition to", inserted "or L19-74, c. . § 2, eff. Apr. M. 1414, one for the other" and "on a cooperative added par. rn. or _ontract 191: Amendment. Subd_ 1. L.19'72. Effective Date. Sec_on effective Feb. c. X01, eff. May 22. 1912 in sentence M. 1960, pursuant to Li960, e. 102. § 2. Library References Counties 1=0.05(1). C.J.S. Counties § 167. dun:cipal Corporations 4=.270. CJ.S. Municipal Corporators ¢ 10-49. Notes of Decisions Generally 1 Conditions precedent generally 3 Airports 20 Creation of separate entity S Allocation of coats 10 Data processing services 24 Ambulance services 21 Discipline of personnel 19 Amendment of agreement 4 Dog pounds 25 Auditing functions 11 Dual office or employment Bank accounts 12 Buildings. construction of 22 Financial transactions in genera! 13 F Bus service 51 re districts in general 26 Commemorative activities 35 Flood control projects 27 Communication systems 23 Garbage and refuse collection 28 Computer or data processing services Gasoline purchases 23 or equipment 2-4 Gravel plants or ;As 30 7 • 1 .' PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY § 121—a .Art. Historical you Effective Date. r^ on efltc ve tune :5. :380. pursuant :a 1_:980. c. S52. � � New York Codes. Rules and Rejlations Returnable beverage containers. see 6 NYCRR put Library References i Municipal Cor^.ors tons 01. !i C.J.S. Municipal Corpontons ¢ 255. § 121. Establishment and maintenance of free public baths :any city, village or town may establish and maintain free public baths, and any city, village or town may appropriate of its funds for the purpose of establishing such free public baths. (L.1909, c. amended L.1943, c. 710, pt_ 1, § 311; L.1955, c. 95, § 1.) Historical Note L 1 Deriration. 1392, c. 473: arrended ..35, :. 351. Library Refereners Municipal Corporst:orJ s�2"6. CJ S. Municipal Cor^,ora::ons ; 1057. Notes of Decisions 1. Generally of its inhabitants. Heilinger v. New The city of New nrk under ;Ls police York. 1917. 181 App Div. 2.54. 168 N.Y.S. powersr.av erect and ^aintain a public 271. batn for :he conser.aCon of the health § 121—a. Creation of village and town police department in certain towns and villages Notwithstanding the provisions of any law, general or special, the town board or boards of a town or towns in the same county and the board or boards of trustees of an incorporated village or villages located wholly within such town or towns, may, upon the adoption of propositions therefor duly submitted in such town or towns and village or villages, determine to create a joint town and village police department for such town or towns and village or villages. The proposition to be submitted in such village or villages may be submitted at a general or special election of each village 1 83 I § 121—a GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW Art 6 and the proposition to be submitted in such town or towns may be submirr' at a general or special election of each town. Upon the adoption of a pr^position therefor as herein provided, the town board or boards and the board or boards of '--ustees of the village or villages shall meet in joint session, at a time and place to be determined by agreement of such boards, and organize such joint police department and establish rules and regulations governing the same. Such boar-as shall at such meeting, by a majority vote, appoint a chief of police for such joint police department. Such chief of police shall be a resident of the area covered by such joint department and be subject to the control, direction and supervision of such joint boards. Such chief of police shall be appointed for a term of office of three years, and shall receive such compensation as the town and village boards at joint session may determine. A chief of police may be removed by joint action of the town and village boards upon written charges for malfeasance or misfeasance in office. Such charges shall.be filed in duplicate in the offices of the town and village clerks and a copy thereof served personally on the chief of police. The town and village boards shall, in joint session, designate a time and place for a hearing upon such charges and cause notice of such hearing to be served personally upon the chief of police at least five days before the day set for the hearing. The town and village boards shall hear the evidence in support and in defense of such charges and by majority vote make an order sustaining or dismissing the charges. An order sustaining the charges shall operate as a removal and the town and village boards shall thereupon appoint another person to fill the vacancy. The person so appointed shall hold office for the balance of the unex- pired term or until the entry of a final order by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that the chief of police was wrong-fully or unlawfully removed. An appeal to the county court may be taken by the chief of police removed within thirty days after personal service of a copy of such order of removal. The county court shall consider the charges presented and review the evidence taken before such joint board. It may hear additional evidence and shall make such ,determination as justice requires. A copy of such order shall be filed in the offices of the town and village clerks. An order by the county court determining the charges shall, upon such filing, act as the reinstatement of the person removed. The board or boards of trustees of each village shall appoint village policemen for service inside the area covered by such joint department, and the town board or boards shall appoint town policemen for service inside the area covered by such joint department. Such town and 84 MI PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY § 121—a .Art s village policemen shall be appointed for such r.erms of office and receive such compensation as the 'town or village board may deter- mine. The expense of village policemen, chargeable by law to a village shall be a charge against the viIllage employing them, and the expense of the town policemen chargeable by law to a town, shall be a charge against real property in the town employing them situated outside of such participating village or villages. The salary of the chief of police and other expenses of the department, except compensation of village and town policemen, shall be appor- tioned between the village or villages and the town or towns by 1 such boards in joint session. The portion of such expense to be borne by a town shall be a charge in that portion of the town situated outside of such participating village or villages and the portion to be borne by a village a village charge. Upon the creation of a joint town and village police department as herein provided, the term of office of all town constables heretofore elected in such town or towns shall terminate and thereafter no constables shall be elected in any such town, unless and until such police department is abolished as hereinafter provided. A joint police department estab- lished as provided by this section may be abolished upon the adoption of a proposition duly submitted at a general or special village or town election to take effect on January first succeeding the next general election at which town officers are elected. Whenever the town board of a town or towns in the same county and the board or trustees of an incorporated village or villages located wholly within such town or towns, either create or abolish a joint town and village police department, the joint board taking such action shall notify the commissioner of the division of criminal justice services of the action taken by them within thirty days oI such action. (Added L1925, c. 5.41, ¢ amended L1959, c. 363. 1: L.1961, c. 597 § 1; L19'3, c. 4.52. § 5.) Historical Note 1979 Amendment L19.1.3. ,:. 482. 1 5, ng a joint town and •tillage police tie- eft. eeft. Sept 1, 13 3, provided that a out partmeat beard Host notify the commissioner of btu.EfTecti.e daSeccon effec5ve Apr. the division of criminal justice services P within 30 days after c.eating or abolish- 9. 19'25, pursuant to L1925. . 541• ¢ 2. New York Codes, Rules and Rrzulationa Municipal police— Standar'•s for officer ar,didates, see 9 NYCRR ?art 5000. Train:ng program, see 9 NYCRR ?art 5020. a ucKi+n. ,,9-m xi s.s+--. 8.5 1 Appendix D Relevant opinions of the State Comptroller and Attorney General .• Appendix D Relevant opinions of the State Comptroller and Attorney General • _.. r . - t'- unuc♦ oc�.Kivu 121-a if voter approval of the matter is desired. TOWN LAW, S5190 , 198 ( 1) ( f) : Discussion of extending a sewer �• district to include several residents of a neighboring village. C ,-;.1.1 LAW, 55277 , 290-a : Discussion of minimum frontage require- ments with regard to a portion of a subdivided parcel located in a town and a deed provision designed to assure proper frontage for such portion . September 29 , 1973 r- • 70-696 r �; 1 1l Richard A. Gould, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Ossining Municipal Building Ossining, New York 10562 Re: Town of Ossining Dear Mr. Gould: • This is in response to you: recent letter and subsequent phone conversation with this Department concerning a parcel of property located partially within a town and partially within a neighboring village. The present owner of the parcel wishes to subdivide and sell a portion of the parcel. This would leave the portion of the remaining parcel located in the town without any frontage on the street. The town' s zoning ordinance provides for all lots to have a minimum frontage on a street or 1rivateway. The present owner is willing to place in the deed, con- veying the portion of the parcel he seeks to sell, a provision to the effect that the landlocked area located in the town will never be conveyed without including therein the remaining portion located in the village, in order to assure proper minimum frontage of this area on a street. In the alternative, he is willing to enter into an agreement with the town to the same effect. You ask about the propriety of such a provision in light of the town' s zoning ordinance and section 230-a of the Town Law, which relates to the issuance of building permits and sets forth access requirements. In addition, you ask whether a sewer district located entirely within the town may be extended to include approx- imately five families located within the neighboring village. Finally, you ask about the proper procedures for the merging of town and village police departments, including any referendum requirements. If no referendum is required by law, you wish to know whether the town and village govern- ments may submit the merger to a referendum on their awn motion. C y nichard A. Gould, Fsq. -2- 7^-595 As Indicated in the aforementioned phone conversation, your first questicn pri.narily involves matters of real property law a^,d local determination and is beyond the surview of municipal lalo. Therefore, we must respectfully decline to render a written opinion with regard thereto. +ith regard to your question concerning extension of the sewer district, section 190 of the Town Law relates to Lnprove.ment districts and provides as follows: " . . No such district shall be established or extended . . . in an incorporated village provided, however, that such a district may be established or extended wholly or partly within an incorporated village on consent of the village expressed in -a local law, ordinance or resolu- tion, subject to a referendum on petition under section twenty-four of the municipal home rule law or a permissive referendum under the village law, as the case may be." Thus, pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 190, the sewer district may be extended to include the area of the village in which the residents in question reside. S+e note that a town board, on behalf of a sewer district, may contract with persons living outside of the boundaries of the district to accept and dispose of sewage from such out- side properties (Town Law, §198(1)(f); 4 Op. State Compt. 83, 1948). The contract price must have a reasonable basis and, in computing it, due regard must be had for the additional expense caused by the added sewage burden, the capital invest- ment of t -he sewer district a-nd s:..milar factors. These is, hcwever, no authority to impose a special assessrient on pro- perties outside of the sewer district (Cp. State Compt. 210. 71-358, 1971, unreported) or for the district to construct facilities outside the district solely for the purpose of serving outside users. In the situation at hand, since only several village residents seek district sewage disposal, it would seers to be advisable for the town, on behalf of the district, to contract with such individuals for sewage disposal service rather than going through the procedures involved in extending the sewer district to include them. Finally, a town and village may merge their respective police departments into a joint police department either by entering into an Article 5-G (General Municipal Law, Article 5-G, 55119-rs et sea.) agreement or pursuant to the terms of zs: sTzzoK Tesunoo a;rToossV zacoop *0 sal: r Ag z3TToz;d :off agu;s yLIAZ I 2'I1H� 'szno4C ktnsa Ij *not oq aour;sTssr ;o aq TTTM anogr ettl ;snz; ek, •TsAozddr zo3 sza;on 9144 04 pa;;Tuigns eq ;uatz;zedep ;uToc s ozuT s;uon:;zedap eoTtod 85rTTTA pus w o; ;o zabzam pesodoid et;; ;sq.; pazTsep sT zT 3T v-tzt uoT;oas ;o suoTsTAozd au; zapun paeoozd ;snri abriTTA pus uMo4. et; 'snug •uTazat; pepTnozd ss TrAoadde za;on of ;oacgns sT uoT;oas leu; zapun ;uau-tdep aoTTod ;uToc v ;o uoT;eazo au; zo3 uoT;Tsodosd y •;uaul;ardep aoTTod e5rTTTA pup uroa quToc P 3o uoTaeezo au; zo3 sazr.paoozd sausTTgv;sa osis API TsdTDTunit TraeueD eq; 3o Y-TZT uoT;Des 'eAogv pauoTwata sr 'zanaMoH ' 0396T 'T 65 ';cIuoo e s 'do 6 Z) pzroq buTuzeAob TrdToTunw Aur Aq uoTaor TrToTdzo o; ;oacqns ` CPN . o 'eq o; sT c;oTgA za; etr• Au? TQAozddr ze;oA o; {Tt:rns o; uoT;ou ui o zTau; uo auTwze;ap ;ou IPu: s3TPT TpdToTunw 'I:Tzoc,;nr fzoar.;pts 3o aouesce au; uT 'zanoazoy, • (pa4zodazun 'ZL6T ' t0E-ZL '0.' 'zdtuoo a;r4s 'do) TeAozddP za;on o; ;uas;zQdan B cons bu T;es: ;uaLraazbr eTT;zy us buTa;Twgns zo, uoT;rz?.ov;ne zo zua44azTnbaz ou bT a.zac,;,, •ns1 TsciToTurv,i TPzaudJ au; 3o r-TZT uoT;oes J 969-6L 'bs3 'pTno!) 'y pzeu0r1t i I I Appendix E NYS Civil Service Law Sec. 83 I I I I l i 1 I I 1 SECTION 83 - CIVIL SERVICE LAW TITLE POLICE A✓VISORY KARL' Section 83 Lecislat_ve Intent In the event that municipalities propose a merger of all or part of existing police agencies within counties in establishing a countywide, a part-county or combinations of municipal police agencies , orderly transitional procedures will be required. In such consolidations of the police functions within a county it is necessary to provide a uniform and equitable method for transferring the members of existing police departments into the combined agency structure. Such methods should protect the rights held by present employees in their existing organization . Section 83-a Creation of a Police Advisory Board Ncthwithstanding the provisions of section seventy of the civil service law or any other general , special or local law, rule or regulation, in any county, not wholly contained in a city, where the police agencies in such county will be consolidated, the local legislative body of such county, if the new or existing agency is a county police agency, or the local legislative body of the new agency if it be other than a county police agency, shall notify the State Civil Service Commission who shall create a police advisory board. The purposes of such board will be to recommend to the State Civil Service Commission the rank to which present employees would be assigned in the consolidated agency. 83/CSL. 1 - ti ink Section 93-b Membership of Board 1 The advisory board shall consist of : (a ) A representative of the New York State Department of Civil Service who will serve as secretary to the board. This member will have no vote in the proceedings but shall transmit to findings of the board to the State Civil Service Commission. 1/ ( b ) The chief executive officer of the civil service agency responsible for the adminis- tration of civil service law for the newly organized or enlargedpolice organization. (c) The chief executive of the municipality of the newly created. _or enlarged police organization or his duly designated repre- sentative . (d) 1 . Three chiefs of police nominated by the President of the New, York State Association of Chiefs of Police, none of whom are involved in the transfer, merger, or crea- tion of the combined agency either directly or indirectly. These members shall have no votes upon matters pertaining to the ranks below that of lieutenant . 2 . In matters pertaining to the ranks below that of lieutenant , votes shall be cast by three members of the Police Con- ference of the State of New York nominated by the President of the Police Conference of New York. Section 83-c Additional Members on Board In addition to the foregoing, the following additional members shall be added to the board depending upon the type of merger involved: (a) Consolidation of two police agencies . The 1 chief of police of both agencies involved in the consolidation and the chief execu- tive officer of both municipalities invol- ved in the consolidation. 1/ So in original. Probably should read 'the' . - 83/CSL. 2 - (b) Consolidation of all or a combination of more than two existing police departments in the county . In cases where all or a combination of existing police departments in the county are being merged into a uniform county or part-county police department , then the chiefs of police of the departments involved in the merger shall select from among themselves one member to represent the group. Similarly all the chief executives of the munici- palities involved in the merger shall select one of their members to represent the group. (c) Consolidation of all or a combination of more than two existing police departments in the county and the criminal division of the sheriff 's department. In addition to the members of the board previously indi- cated, there shall be added to the board, the sheriff . (d) For the purposes of this section, the chief of police means that person who is employed by a municipality on a full-time salaried basis for the express purposes of administering a police department and who has successfully passed a civil service examination for chief of police, and has received such appointment . Section 83-d Police Advisory Board Meetings The board will be convened by the President of the State Civil Service Department, who will indicate the date, time and place of the first meeting. Subsequent meetings will be held in accordance -with the majority determination of the board. Section 83-e Duties of Police Advisory Board The board will establish appropriate procedures and policies for the conduct of its affairs , and will make its recommendations to the President of the State Civil Service Commission. - 83/CSL. 3 - 1.' Section 83-f Procedures ( a ) :n making recommendations for the appro- priate rant to which present police offi- cers will be assigned to the consolidated department , consideration will be given to the examination from which the present incumbents received their permanent civil service status , the length of time served 1 in their present position and other rela- ted factors which will be established and promulgated by the board. 1 (b) Where there may not be sufficient vacan- cies in the organization of the consoli- dated police department for all persons to 1 be assigned_ to their rank as determined by the board, the board will determine the persons to be selected for existing vacan- cies in accordance with criteria estab- lished by the board. Those persons not selected to the rank to which their pre- vious position has been declared equiva- lent will be placed on a preferred list for that specific rank. Such persons will have priority in appointment for the next lower rank position in the organization. Such appointment will not affect their status on the preferred list in the higher 1 rank when subsequent vacancies develop. Section 83-c - Comoensation of Board Members No member of the board shall receive any additional compensation from the State of New York or any of its politi- cali subdivisions for any services rendered to the board nor any expenses incurred in attendance at board meetings. - 83/CSL. 4 - I I I I I Appendix F I Taylor Law Implications of Government p Consolidation M m. v-.0; - �;� -ua- 'C_ TONS 07 GOV=R TNrN C _ SO ; The f_scal now confronting all levels of government in New York nave greatly increased the felt need to maximize cost savings and encourage cost efficiencies . Local governments in this State have shown a renewed interest in exploring ways to do more with less- . The expressed interest ranges from a sharing of services , resources or staff under an . Iexpanded use of inter ) nicipal agreements to proposals for the structural consolidation or abolition of certain of the thousands of existing government entities . Any of the options under 1 consideration will affect, to varying degrees , the employees of these local governments , the overwhelming majority of whom are organized and represented by unions for purposes of collective bargaining under the State' s Public Employees ' Fair Employment Act (Taylor Law)`. As the labor relations implications of these options plainly warrant examination', this article attempts to identify the major public sector labor law issues posed by consolidation and to offer a basic framework for the analysis of certain of those issues . • Public employers have a statutory duty to negotiate in good faiths with any union which is recognized or certified as the representative of any of the public emalover' s employees regarding the terms and conditions of employment' of those employees . Those. types of local government cooperation or consolidation which involve the employees of one municipality doing the work which the employees of another municipality have done raise issued about the compulsatory negotiability of such 1 arrangements . The PubL_c Employment Relations Board ( PER3) which is the State agency charged with the responsibility to apply and enforce the Taylor Law, has held, and the courts have affirmed, in a number of different factual circumstances that the decision to Itransfer work which his:orica _v has been performed exclusively by the employees in one negotiating unit to persons outside of that negotiating unit is a mandatory- subject of negotiation if the work transferred remains substantially unchanged on transfer'. The negotiability of the decision to transfer unit iwork is unaffected by the means taken to effectuate the transfer or the identity of the nonunit providers of service. PER3 has used basically the same negotiability analysis whether the transfer decision is effected by subcontract with a private 1 contractor, by arrangement with other public employers or by the public employer' s assignment of the unit work to others in its employ. Similarly, that the decision may enable the employer to i cut costs or to become more efficient does not affect the negotiability of the decision to transfer the work-; rather, those factors go only to the merit of the decision. Categorizing a decision to transfer bargaining unit work as a mandatory subject of negotiation means that the decision is generally subject to a duty to bargain on the union' s demand and, more importantly, that the employer may not unilaterally transfer the work. Unilateral action is a refusal to negotiate in good faith in violation of the Taylor Law unless defensible on some substantive or procedural ground. I An assessment of the bargaining duty which may attach to those forms of local government cooperation or consolidation ::volving a transfer of unit work is far more complicated that the preceding identification and summary of the issue may suggest . It would, for example, be overly simplistic and erroneous to conclude that all decision to transfer unit work are mandatorily negotiable. An examination of the existing case law- .shows that there are often difficult issues of fact and law involved in these cases . Far example, in issue in any given case can be the appropriate definition of the unit work, ' including considerations of discernible boundaries to the unit work, '' the union' s establishment and maintenance of exclusivity over the work in issue, - the similarity of the work before and after the transfer'` and the qualifications necessary to the performance of that work. 13 Moreover, in any given transfer case, the parties may also have to consider other statutes which may affect the mandatory negotiability of the particular transfer. - Space and purpose do not permit or require any discussion of these several issues, but readers should be alert to them. In addition to the employer' s bargaining obligation which may attach to the decision to transfer unit work, there is also a continuing duty to bargain upon the union' s demand the impact or the affects of that decision upon the employees ' terms and conditions of employment unless the duty has been previously satisfied or the union' s right to bargain has been waived. `' For example, if certain of a municipality' s employees were to be laid off as a result of a consolidation decision, the bargaining agent for those employees would generally be entitled to bargain their severance pay, benefits , re-raining and reemployment rights to 1 the extent those were not otherwise mandated by law . The impact bargaining duty need not, however, be satisfied as a precondition to the implementation of the transfer decision. ' For example, 1 if, for whatever reason, there is no duty to bargain the decision to transfer unit work, an employer would be privileged to implement the transfer- unilaterally even though there may be a duty to bargain the effects of that decision on demand. Many types of proposed governmental consolidation will involve a change in the employing unit . For example, 1, municipality A becomes the employer or some or all of municipality B' s employees through a partial or complete merger. Municipality A' s employees are represented by one union and covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The former employees of municipality 3 were represented by a different union under a contract different in type and duration from the one covering municipality A' s employees . - The statutory obligations of these municipalities to their present and former employees and their union representatives can become issues necessitating evaluation, whether in the context of the parties ' merger agreements, in an improper practice proceeding before PERB, an arbitration, or some judicial action or proceeding. As the focus of the inquiry in this type of situation is most often upon the obligations of the new or "successor" employer, it is this issue which merits attention . There is a great body of successorship law in the private tE - 1 sector under the National Labor Relations Act, but very little under New Yolk' s Taylor Law, - a circumstance stemming from the frequent changes in private business ownership and a historic absence of similar types of change in the public sector. The successorship issues are also often decided in the public sector by legislation when specifically addresses at least certain of them. Although PER3 ' s few successorship decisions have generally recognized this substantial body of federal law, its decisions have also made clear that, consistent with the Taylor Law' s command,`;n federal law is not necessarily applicable and surely not controlling because of the fundamental differences between government and private enterprise . The practical first step in any analysis of a successorship question is to determine whether the new entity is the successor of the former employing entity. Although there is no fixed definition of a successor employer under federal labor law`- or the Taylor Law, PERS appears to have adopted an analytical approach similar to that in the private sector. In examining the continuity between governmental entities , PERB has suggested that it is appropriate to consider, for example, whether a majority of the new employer' s employees were employed by the former employer and whether the employees are performing substantially the same work under substantially similar working conditions .`` Once having labeled any given employer a successor, the issue of that successor' s obligations remains to be decided. In that respect, both in the public and private sector, the 11' questions regarding the statutory obligations of the successor fall into two general categories . First is the successor ' s duty, any, to continue the substantive provisions of any existing or expired agreements which were negotiated by its predecessor in interest . Second is its duty, if any, to continue to recognize and bargain with the union( s ) which represented its predecessor' s employees . With respect to the first issue, consistent with the decisions in the private sector, PERB has held that a successor 1 employer is not bound- by the substantive provisions of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by its predecessor � which has not been agreed to or assumed by the successor.za Similarly, an employer cannot be required to bargain demands which would bind that employer' s possible successors .`` PERB has addressed the second issue in three decisions which warrant brief discussion . in City of A.msterdam — a representation proceeding, the City petitioned to consolidate two negotiating units , covering water 1 and sewage operations, each of which was represented by a different union. PERE found that the City was the 'successor employer of a water board and a State agency which had operated the sewage plant. In a footnote to its decision dismissing the city' s petition, PERS stated that the City "is required to deal with the unions that represented the employees of its two predecessors in the preexisting negotiating units , unless those negotiating units can otherwise be found to be inappropriate. "" The paramount significance of the continuing appropriateness � • ' 1 of the bargaining unit in defining the successor employer' s bargaining obligations is demonstrated in two other of PER3 ' s decisions . State of New York (O'rmp_c Regional Development Authority) ( hereafter ORDA)-: involved the transfer of the operation and maintenance of the Gore Mountain Ski Center (Gore) from the State to ()RDA. The Public Employees Federation ( PEF ) had represented through its several thousand member PS&T 1 executive branch unit certain employees who worked at Gore when it was a State facility. ORDA was created in 1981 and it had recognized the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) as the 1 representative of its employees . The State transferred the operation, maintenance and management of Gore to ORDA in 1984 at a time when both PEF' s and CSEA' s collective bargaining agreements were in effect . ORDA placed the employees transferred from the State into CSEA' s unit and it refused to extend PEF any contractor or statutory _ -gts . In dismissing PEF' s charge that ORDA was required to honor the State-PEF contract and to deal with it as the representative of the employees who were formerly in its PS&T unit, PERS found that a unit consisting solely of a few former PS&T unit titles employed at Gore was not a most appropriate unit. In effect, PEF was not allowed to follow forty former members of its PS&T unit to their new employment with ORDA. In County of Schenectadv_, 'c the City of Schenectady had • transferred the function of community health nursing and several community health nurses to the County.: Those nurses , when City employees, had been in a separate negotiating unit represented by 1'' ,. 1 the New York State Nurses Association (Nurses Association) . On becoming county employees , the nurses were placed by the County 1 into the County-wide negotiating unit represented by the Civil Service Employees Association. CSEA' s unit included some registered nurses and licensed practical nurses . The Nurses Association demanded :he County recognize and bargain with it on behalf of the former City nurses in a separate unit . When the County refused, the Nurses Association filed an improper practice charge with PERS alleging interference and a refusal to bargain . 1 The Nurses Association argued that City of Amsterdam controlled 1 and required the County to bargain with it in a separate unit because the County took over what had been a discrete City unit. CSEA and the County argued that ORDA controlled because a separate unit of a few registered nurses was not most appropriate. PERS found that the County had no legal obligation to recognize or negotiate with the Nurses Association concerning the former City nurses because a separate unit of some nurses would be inappropriate . PERB held that the controlling feature of both City of Amsterdam and ORDA was the most appropriate unit determination. Several other issues can be added to the many a consolidation may raise under an application of that body of law involving transfers of unit work and successorship. As these, however, have to date been largely or wholly unanswered under the Taylor Law, the following listing of issues must suffice at this time . ( 1 ) When after consolidation can the appropriateness of any remaining unit configurations be tested? ( 2 ) By what ■ m - -- - standard ( e.g. initial uniting or fragmentation) should unit acorooriateness be tested? ( 3 ) What is the effect of a consolidation on the continuing majority status of any of the successor employer' s incumbent unions? ( 4 ) What is the extent to which the new employeris free to establish terms and conditions of employment different from those enjoyed by employees under existing or expired contracts or practices with their predecessor employer? ( 5 ) When and_ under what circumstances might the new employer be deemed an alter ego of its predecessor and what are Ithe effects of such a determination? ( 6 ) When and under what 1 circumstances might a successor be deemed to have adopted or J1 assumed a predecessor' s collective bargaining agreement? ( 7 ) To what extent is a successor employer liable for any statutory violations committed by its predecessor? ( 8 ) What is the successor employer' s right to insist that its unions adhere to any contract they may have signed with the predecessor employer? ( 9 ) At what point does a successor employer' s bargaining obligation attach? ( e . g. , on the successor' s first acquisition of any of the predecessor' s employees or only after the successor has hired the full complement of its staff? ) . ( 10) To what extent will any of the aforementioned issues vary by the particular form of governmental consolidation? For example, what are the obligations of a wholly new entity created from the dissolution of two or more governments . This above list of issues is not complete. There are undoubtedly many other issues lurking in the particular factual setting of consolidations yet to occur. The number and mm. 7111111111111111111111.111111 cy9`. . 11. 11 complexity of the labor relations issues , which this article has largely only •1den • = ,ad, command attention by a_: par_ es affected by any form of consolidation. Those parties are obviously best served if they have anticipated these labor law issues and ,_ is hoped that this article will be of assistance in Ithat regard. Where possible, the creation of labor-management committees consisting of all interested parties would be helpful in identifying and resolving the many consolidation issues without litigation. I I f I s• 1 ENDNOTES Aucust 1990 , Governor Cuomo appointed an eighteen-member 31ue Ribbon Commission on Consoidation of Local Governments . The Commission issued its interimreposJNovember 1991 wh' ch made recommendations for ways local governments could consolidate the' , jurisdictions , services or functions . 2 . N.Y.Civ. Serv. Law 200-214 (McKinney 1983 & Supp . 1992 ) , 3 . For example, a subcommittee of the Governor' s Blue Ribbon Commission on Consolidation of Local Governments , for example, has been formed for the sole purposes of addressing the impact of local government consolidation and intergovernmental cooperation on the totality of the employment relationship, including collective bargaining,- labor agreements and union representation. 1 4 . N.Y.Civ. Serv. Law 200, 204 . 2 , 209-a. 1(d) (McKinney 1983) . 5 . The phrase is defined in Civil Service Law 201 . 4 as "salaries, wages , hours , agency shop fee deduction ( except for employees in State negotiating units ) and other terms and conditions of employment . . . " 6 . Mandatory subjects of negotiation are those over which an employer and a union representative have a duty to bargain. Permissive subjects are those to which either side may, but are not required to bargain. Prohibited subjects are those forbidden, by statute or otherwise, from being bargained or embodied in a collective bargaining agreement . See Village of Lynbrook, 48 N.Y. 2d 398 ( 1979 ) . 7 . See, e . g. , Niacara Frontier Transcrtat-on Auth . , 18 PER3 3083 ( 1985 ) . 8 . Saratoga Sorings School Dist . , 11 PERB 3037 ( 1978 ) , conf 'd. 68 A.D. 2d 202 ( 3rd Dec: . 1979 ) , motion for leave to aopeal denied, 47 N. Y. 2d 711 ( 1979) ; City of Poughkeepsie, 15 PERS 3045 ( 1982 ) , conf 'd, 95 A. D. 2d 101 ( 3rd • Dept . 1983 ) , appeal dismissed, 60 N.Y. 2d 859 ( 1983 ) , motion for leave to appeal denied, 62 N. Y. 2d 602 ( 1984) . 9 . See City of Buffalo, 24 PERB 3043 ( 1991 ) . 10 . Town of West Seneca, 19 PER3 3028 ( 1986) . Through a finding of a discernible boundary, a union may be able to establish a claim of exclusivity over unit work within that boundary which would otherwise have been lost. 11 . Indian River Cent . School Dist . , 20 PERS 3047 ( 1987 ) . 12 . Hyde Park Cent . School Dist . , 21 PERE 3011 ( 1988) . 13 . Count', of Nassau, 2: ?ERB 3038 ( 1988 ) ; West Hempstead Union -tee School Dist . , 14 ?ER3 3096 ( 1981 ) 14 . For example, in Webster Cent . School Dist . v . ?ER3, 73 the Y 2d 619 ( 1991 ) , Courof Appeals held that certain orovisions of the State Education Law reflected a legislative intent that a decision to subcontract summer school academic programs was not to be mandatorily negotiable . 15 . Tonawanda City School Dist . , 17 PER3 3091 ( 1984 ) ; City of Watertown, 10 PER3 3008 ( 1977 ) . 16 . Town of Oyster Bair, 12 ?ER3 3086 ( 1979 ) . 17 . This is a very simple construct. The issues obviously become greatly more complicated, both practically and legally, as the number of different unions and contracts grows . 18 . See Op. PERB Counsel, 18 PER3 5002 ( 1985 ) . 19 . See, e. c . , N.Y. Jud. Law 39 (McKinney 1983 ) . This legislation grew out of the State' s. takeover in April 1977 of the formerly locally administered cburt system. 20 . Section 209-a . 4 of the Civil Service Law provides that "no body of federal or state law applicable wholly or in part to private employment, shall be regarded as binding or controlling 1 precedent. " 21 . The Supreme Court, in Howard Johnson Company v. Detroit Joint Bd. , Hotel & Restaurant Employees , 417 U. S . 249, 86 LRRM 2449 ( 1974 ) , cautioned against any definition of a successor employer. 22 . State of New York (Olv:.:cic Reciona: Development Authority) , 20 ?ER3 3046 ( 1987 ) ( hereinafter ORDA) . - - 123 . NLRB v. Burns _nt ' 1 Detective Agency. inc . , 406 U. S . 272, • SOLRRM 2225 ( 1972 ) . 24 . ORDA, suora note 21 . 25 . Monroe-Woodbury Cent . School Dist . , 10 PER3 3029 ( 1977 ) . 1 26 . 17 PERE 3045 ( 1984 ) , petition to review dismissed, 17 PERB 7015 ( Sup. Ct . Alb. Co . 1984 ) . 27 . 17 PER3 3045 at 3072 n . 2 . 28 . Supra note 21 . 29 . In reaching this conclusion, however, PERB expressly left open the question whether ORDA would have had an obligation to deal with PEF if ORDA had taken over a substantial portion of the 4 PS&T unit. 30 . 25 PER3 3043 ( June 30 , 1992 ) . 31 . The transfer was made apparently in accc:dance wiz`.: Civil Service Law 70 and Public Health Law 340 . I 1 Appendix G Law and opinion pertaining to desk duty 5 I . 1 Ch. 9B MUNICIPALITIES § 5711 -q lice departments may be continued on duty for such of such police ti es Everymember of such police de- partment maythan shall be allowed an annual vacation of not less fourteen consecutive days without diminution of salary or corn- dor pursuant to law, except in c- of pub- . public emergency during which pensation as ..xe.. by tic 'va ation o In rtioe n'oftafvac tion of a member shall have the vacation or portion been withheld, upon the cessation of such emergency, such mem- ber shall then receive with pay the number of days of such vaca- tion withheld. department of 15. Assignment to desk duty. In the police to desk duty or act any such village, no person shall be assignedent, ext as a desk officer except a member of the police departm public emergency, and if a patrolman shall cept in a case of a power and authority of an be so assigned, he shall have- d shall be governed by acting sergeant of such departmentthe rank during such as- the regulations and orders affecting signment. The rank and grade of desk officer in the koffecde- partment of any such village is hereby fivers capacity when this article takes effect,' r civil ovid- Sewing in that beenappointed to such position pursuant ing they have service rules and regulations, and their names have - sebeen n ap- proved and certified by the civil service commission, be- come and have all the rights and privileges of patrolmen of such department and the time if served�as des k suchshall for all purposes be counted de- partment. the policemen so ap- pointed Powers and duties of policemen. pointed shall have all the powers and be subject to the duties and liabilities of constables of towns in serving process in any Said policemen shall have power to civil action or proceeding. Said of the peaceexecute any warrant or process issued by ) of Westchester county. of 17. Fees, salaries and expenses of policeof each mea. The Tillageboard po- lice shall fix the amount of the salad lice officer and may, at its option, determine that the village shall pay all or part of the cost of the uniforms and necessary equipment of its police officers. All fees collected or received by such officer belong to the village and he must account there- forthe village, except those fees received for the execution to corporate lim- its all process, civil or criminal, outside of the its of the said village, and for the execution of f ��s pA vii- cess within the village while not on duty as a police 385 32 1i I Informal Opinu n No. 35-oa CO CST ( 19 J). I ,tlb.1`1L `+ICIPALiROMEnRULE LAW, CO ( ; (1 Art. IX. § VILLAGE LAW. § 3-800; � 2(5) and (t_). ll.{t'.{il and (.i,�.axll: McKINNEY'S UNCONSOLIDATED LAWS. § 571I-q; L 1939, Ch 300. The village of Port Chester in Westchester County may by local law establish the position of commissioner of i S to in placge000f I the police chief, and thereby supersede the sped ct erning village police departments in Westchester County. You have indicated that your village's police department is f governed by a special act or the State Legislature dealing with village police departments in Westchester County. You havecassked whether your village that varies from heblish a provisions of the State ucray for j he police depa rt I act. lice officers and the establishment, The employm:nt of village police lice departments in all villages organization an.. operation of p° pa ' provisions in Westchester County are "governed solely" by hep "Until of State elaw pr v;ded by law", the police dedpartments ofsuchvillages otherwise CO ppolice and such lieutenants, sergeants are to consist ,if a chief of and patrolmer as may be needed (id.. § 5711-q[4], [21]). You have informed us that the structure of your police department is subject to anc in fact conforms with the requirements of the e above-cited Suite law. There is a chief of police who o ns Thvillagesibl for the day-to-lay operations of the police department_ lice department ment personnel is ret pan iblegenerally for hiringm anthe executive firing of functions with personnel ane generally pe respect to the police department- In place of this structure, the village would like to establish the position of commissioner of police, who \•ould replace the chief and take over that portion of the village manager's role dealing with the police department. Thus. the commissioner of police would have responsibility for day.-try operations of the police department and would have responsibility for the executive function with respect to the police department_ governing police departments in The above-cited provisions go g villages of Westchester County were added by chapter 300 of the Laws of 1939. This was prior to the extension of ho Uendrule to cin 1940 ( hConst br 9f truster of a village may by currenter the ouVillage Law, ice department (Village Law, § 3-800). The structure establishreofs a P� en however, is left for The structure such a department, that deter- mination by the board of trustees Thus, it appears at yourr village is subjrct to an archaic act, illustratingthe tendencyt time to contr)l specifically municipal functions and operations. The current Village Law rem the granting of home rule to 35 I • villous and stahl:shcs general standard, its bc- iniplcmcnied tr.. .illsgcs using their ,,nteist•c home rule p„wcrs. in our .icw. the `%!lunge of Port (-nester n Westchester County ma• enact a local law establishing ..he position of commissioner of police with the aboYe;escnbed powers. Under Article IX of the New. York State Constitution, local governments have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or any general law. relating to their property, affairs or government and :n relation to ..he powers, duties. qual- ifications. number, mode of selection and removal, terms of orl:ice, compensation, hours of work, protection, welfare and safety of their officers and employees (Art IX. § 2(c)[t] and (iil(ll: Municipal Home Rule Law, § 16(11.(i) and i,ii] a)(I]). A "general law" for home rule purposes is denned as "(a) law which in terms and in effect applies alike to all counties, all counties other than those wholly included within a city, all cities, all towns or all villages" (NY Const, Art IX, - 3(d)[1]: Municipal Home Rule Law, § 2(5)). Under this definition, the State act governing police departments in villages in Westchester County is a special, rather than a general law (Municipal Home Rule Law, § 2(12]). Thus, assuming that the village has home rule powers to determine the structure of its police department, the local law need not be consistent with the special State act. In our view, determination of the bureaucratic structure of a village police department. establishment of positions and defining 1 the powers and duties of these positions are matters within the NY Const, "affairs and government" of the village (id.. § t 1 J[i]; Art IX. § '-(c)[i],- Additionally, under Municipal Rule Law, § 10(1)(riXa)(I) .(see, also. NY Const, Art IX, § 2(cl[ii][I]), the village has considerable authority to establish and structure local positions. In previous opinions of this office, we have recognized the authority of municipalities to establish and structure police departments through the adoption of local laws (1982 Op Atty i Gen (Intl 80; 1980 Op Atty Gen [Intl 269: see, also, .latter of ;fet_gar v Elar, 78 Misc 2d 1002 (Sup Ct, Nassau Co, 1974]). Also, the courts have recognized the extensive home rule authority of local governments with respect to local offices and positions (Resnick v County of Ulster, 44 NY2d 279 [1978]). In our view, the structure of village police departments in Westchester County is not a matter of State concern.' Control over local positions is a matter that historically and under current home rule authority is within the powers of local governments (Resnick v County of Ulster, supra). Further, the fact that most villages in this State have flexibility in establishing the structure of their village police departments is inconsistent with the concept that this subject is a matter of State concern (compare .Matter of Kelley v McGee. 57 NY2d 522 [1982]). •The State L.e stature:s anrestraioed and unhampered try the home rule provisions of the Consututioa wh© deako�with manus of State caocers(Adler v Denali. Ase laws 251 NY 467. 443.44 Corn NY C CC Art 4 D iavmanes"anes"of State wooers *say ucee mot be scded b7'si Yaw(Fire:stters Ass& . V.Y. City. 50 'Cr.A1 S5 (f 9 }. We conclude that the village of Port Chester in Westchester County may by local law establish the position of commissioner of police in place of the police chief, and thereby supersede the special State act governing village police departments in West- chester County. Dated: July 22, 1985 George A. O'Hanion, Esq. Village Attorney, Pot Chester 36 I I 1 Appendix H State-Local Issue Brief, New York's Experience with Police Consolidation I • • n Uric State-Local 1. , ' Lcgislatitse t anernisaiom On Issue Brief Slate-LAW Madan 130 SlateStrengthening the Partnership Between New's r+<State aria Its Local Governments ,11barry,Nee/Yat t 2= ACQUISITIONS 1 I November, 1989 U' 1'Noa•'iRAR'� n i"...---4"CILL15 NEW YORK'S EXPERIENCE �(rFRO L. WITH POLICE CONSOLIDATION 1 „ 1.----t - 7 STATE N:if:. :i' F NEW } AT ISSUE — The cost of providing police services has risen considerably in the past ten years. Une p ir f explanation is that the existence of many small, separate departments contributes to ineS(sen; this Is true, a logical policy option to explore in trying to control police costs is consolidation. At issue are the reasons why consolidation is considered,the extent to which police force consolidations I have been attempted in New York, and based on that experience, the results that can reasonably be expected from consolidation. There were 13,641 police agencies in Justice Standards and Goals has recotn- This Issue Brief examines the relation 1 the United States in 1986 employing mended that: ship between the cost for police service 533,247 full-time equivalent employees.' Every state and local government and the size of the jurisdiction served Those figures suggest the "average” and every police agency should pro- The reasons both for and against consol department has about 39 employees. Yet, vide police services by the most idation are presented as background fo 1 more than half the nation's police depart- effective and efficient organizational six case studies of consolidation attempt menu report that they have fewer than means available to it . . . If the most in New York. The case studies identify ter, officers. In fact, 987 small towns in effective and efficient police service issues that often prompt the consolida I the United States arc served by only one can be provided through mutual aid tion question. police officer.: agreement or joint participation. . . The number of small departments the governmental entity or police Backgzound may be a cause for concern.The National agency should immediately enter Advisory Commission on Criminal into appropriate agreement or joint The primary reason most local off operation. . . At a minimum.police cials initially consider consolidation, c agencies that employ fewer than police services is to save money. In Ne ten sworn employees should York, police costs arc one of the large , consolidate) (Emphasis added] single items in local budgets. While the CO.tif.%I/SSIO.`.ME.MBERS If that recommendation •.vete heeded is significant variation, depending c Chairman today, most of the police departments in whether or not the community has Melvin . Zimmer the United States would consolidate. police department, police costs repr assrmoliman. 1_Orh District In New York, at least 175 (29cc) of the sented 11.3 percent of all local operatir • Vice Chairman State's approximately 600 police depart- expenditures, outside of New York Cit James. . thDDistrict merits had staffs of less than ten in 1986. in 1987. • Senator. 47th Disrrlct In many of the State's rural counties, At the county level, where State la "ancy L. Hoffmann most of the police departments have less requires a county sheriff, police cos Siaor. H m not than ten full- or part-time staff. For represented 11.7 percent of all expend anrhony.li. .tfasiello example, Allegheny County has eight tures. Virtually all incorporated tunic Senator, .8th District police departments; but only one depart- palities have a police department, whit Mary.1.I. McPhillips merit has more than ten on its staff — helps explain why cities and village .tsse.•nbh..oman. 94tis District Wellsville Villiage. In Cattaraugus both at 14.3 percent,are above the Stat Richard H. Miller County, only two of nine police depart- wide figure. By contrast, many tow! .assembltman. 123rd District ments have more than ten staff members do not have police departments,which Jess J. Present — the City of Olean and the City of reflected in their 6.4 percent of tot; Senator, Shth District Salamanca.' expenditures for police services.s Frank G. Talomie, Sr. .assemblyman. l:9th DistrictThe Cost Factors ra Caesar Trun.o • • • Ata minimum,police Senator. 3rd District agencies that employ fewer It is widely held that consolidatio Lewis J. Yevoti than ten sworn employees efforts are primarily driven by fisc: Assembltman. 13th District stress and that cost factors are the mai should consolidate." criteria upon which decisions are base( Paul D. Moore [Emphasis added] The objective of consolidation, in th E.recurive Director scenario, would be to reduce per tapir police costs. Issue Brief ' Per capita cost for police ser.ices is considerably higher in New York State Table 61e 2 than in most other states. Table I shows �.e,.t� arid Per Capita PoUce Con,for United States CitSea that of the largestcosstates. New York's Population Rama From 10.000 to Overit 1.000.000 per capita police costs 32 percent higher cos,of Pollex Service than the next highest state(New Jersey). Per Capita Peculation Group Over 1.000.000 No of Cities 5 sort]get S0001 Table t 5204,784 5134.06�0 0 1 000000 9 63.576 93.75 Perens P Laziestoke Cosa Starts 250.,X70- 499,999 03 ;5,988 30.87 In the e Ten est 100.000- 249.999 72 9.939 72.97 50,000- 99.999 151 4.356 70.69 1443 25.000- 49.999 302 2.168 64.45 1980 Per Capita 10.000- 24,999 650 936 61.52 Police— Population oolice State (Millions) Protection Source: The .NunicipoJ Year Book PM.p. 186 Canforrt a 26.365 5104.71 New Yoh 17,7/3 138.06 I Texas 16,370 66.67 - Pennsyhanta 11.853 65.07 Illinois 11,535 96.46 Commission-sponsored research by per capita police expenditures. Th Florida 11.366 84.55 Cornell University found evidence of "r-squared"statistic, which indicates th Ohio 10.744 57.16 economies of size in the provision of amount of variation in per capita cm Michigan 9.08879.99 police services, and concluded that that is explained by population, show New Jersey 7.562 106.2* some smaller governments may benefit that only .02 percent of the variance North Carolina 6.:55 59.06 from contracting or cooperating with explained. The standard error for th SourceDen.ed From Justice F_rpendfrtur other governments for law enforcement group of communities ($111.42) is mot and Employment (1985). U.S. Dept- of services• than four times its average police Co Justice.July. 1989. Communities with populations less of $25.60 per capita. In fact, sta than 8,000 may benefit from an discovered that a municipality's fu New York's high per capita costs are examination of opportunities for property value is more strongly relate due in part to the inclusion of some large cooperation or contracting with to per capita police costs than its popul; departments. New York City, Nassau other local governments in the pro- tion is. While this relationship is st. County and Suffolk County forces are vision of law enforcement services. weak, with only 4.85 percent of tI 1 among the largest and most expensive in above 8,000 population costs rise variance explained and a standard err the United States. Interestingly, these substantially. Those local govern- of SI08.69, it does support the idea th. departments are generally considered to ments with populations below 1,000 police protect property as well as peopl be"consolidated." appear to have the highest potential A much stronger relationship is shoe A Commission staff analysis of 198% for savings from cooperation or when the effects of absolute populatit police expenditures showed that these contracting.' size are controlled by using full value p departments do affect the per capita However, similar Commission staff capita (commonly known as the weal police cost for all local governments, but analysis of costs in New York State, factor) a of p not to the degree that might be antici- focusing on municipalities with popu- capita. asIthis relationship,predictorof police?cost pared. When New York City was ex- perce lations under 8.000. found no clear of the variance is explained and t eluded, the per capita cost was reduced relationship between population and standard error is 565.76. This suppo 1 by nine percent. `When New York City, the concept of "ability to pay" as Suffolk County and Nassau County(and their sub-units) were excluded, the per "Commission-sponsored determinant of police costs per capita. capita cost was reduced by 32 percent. research byCornell r✓rni- Despite these efforts, the limitatio Assuming these percentages were appli- cable to the 1985 data in Table I. the per versity found evidence of quite evident. In order to effectiva capita police cost for municipalities, economies of size in the analyze police consolidation optiot excludingNew York City, Nassau and other factors must be considered. provision of police ser- Suffolk, would still have been relatively vices and concluded that Consolidation high at 594.19.6 Another widely held theory is that some smaller govern- One of the most important and poli 1 � there is a positive correlation between meets may benefit from tally sensitive services a community c police costs and population size. One contracting or cooperat- provide is police services. Pressure control increasing costs for this sen,, national study segregated police costs for ing with other govern- makes consolidation a reasonable poll municipalities with populations greater than 10,000. Table 2 shows that, within ments for law enforce- option to consider. There are sever this category,costs appear to be generally ment services." forms and degrees of "consolidatio proportional to the size of the popula- and,as Table 3 shows,some general pr tion served. and cons to be considered. I 1S514C l_1 is j I . , 'Ghia 7 i Advantages and Disadvantages of Polka Cornoddatioe Advanuga Disadvantages Consolidation mitigates several conditions .hien limit at reduce :he Lou of!Deal:au enjoinment ierNice. in addition to the psychological I effectiveness of enfatcement service. Supporters ctaim hat small loss of dentuv among recipient commuwhich communities. is claimed to agency mergers reduce inter•jurtsdictsonal overly intdisputes. ,cal- accom n cconsolidation.o nens purport that local offcen know a ousses and competition; eliminate questions of inter-urudictsonal community and .0 problems better than . a consolidated agency enforcement authority; and. provide consistent area-wide practices (would): mergers dilute Use relationship between foal citizens and I members of the law enforcement agency that serves UM= and. the and procedure. enforcement of local codes and ordinances suffers as a result of Consolidation results in an improved level and quality of service. It is consolidation. argued that mergers result in a broader range acid',eve!of service than isI t enforcement service.financially possible through small independent agencies.These improve- Loss of control over the level and qual'r ty of acv r menu are said to be embodied in full-time.specialized.law enforcement This argument reflects the concern that consolidation diminishes a corn- and emergency back-up capabilities;improved communications apabili- munity's control over improving services if they become unsatisfactory. ties; and. more intensive patrol coverage in both urban and rural areas., coupled with reduced response time to emergency calls for assutanoe. Consolidation has proven no more effective than current delivery systems. Although proponents claim the many benefits of consolidation. e I Consolidation results in higher quality personnel complements. This opponents point to the lack of documentation on these benefits. caim is said to result from the better training.supervision,organization t and working codditions offered by merged agencies,as well as the higher Consolidation may cost es much or mote than tin current delivery S salaries,benefits and advancement opportunities which tend to attract system. Even though some data show that consolidation may be fiscally I better qualified individuals. beneficial for smaller municipalities,there are other factors to consider. s such as special circumstances (i.e.,colleges. resorts, traffic patterns), S Consolidation produces improved efficiencies and economies of scale. quality demands citizen satisfaction, or other subjective criteria which e Proponents argue that per unit costs for police services are reduced affect the level of police service in a given municipality. Unfortunately, ;I1 through small agency mergers,or that more service can be provided for there s no readily available data by which to measure these. 'f the same'law enforcement dollar invested. Other claims along this same 11 general vein include the following: specialized services can be provided d because of economies realized through the grater utilization of expensive equipment and;or personnel•increased coverage an be provided without use a l- appreciably increasing costs,and, more emcmenr and productive e n Il be made of auxiliary personnel engaged in such activities as communro- 1G tions,records.etc. it it Source:Small Police Agency Consolidation:Suggested Apprcacisrs,Terry Koepsell and Chinks Girard,U.S. Department of lustier. 1 e. ,r. • n 1 Structural Versus individual small department to provide. In addition to such examples c Functional Consolidation Consolidation may affect a diverse "functional consolidation." there ar hnumber of services such as: training, other methods for restructuring polic It may be misleading to look at the •communication, payroll and record keep- protection. r 1 very small police departments as totally frig, 911 numbers, computers. complex Contracting. This is a voluntar rat independent entities. Man although e pe y , g equipment, laboratory services, and method in which one government erste; not consolidated, may achieve the same investigation units. into a formal binding agreement t • a J -e end through sharing services. Service Consolidation. This is a tifutual.-lid. Mutual aid is defined by provide all or specific law enforcemet the National Sheriffs Association as an services to another government for a method of merging specific services that exchange of services, personnel and, or established fee. Generally, in New Yor are not efficient or cost effective for an re equipment between law enforcement State,this involves a large unit o gores re - lv agencies during times of emergency. merit,such as a county, contracting wit Mutual aid is generally practiced by a smaller unit such as a village or town 5. "One ofthe most im or- impor- all law enforcement agencies. Police Service Districts. A police se tant and politically sensi- Joint Activity. Police units in a given vice district is an area within an indivi< I tive services a community locality may unite to perform a specific ual county where a special level of servi< activity jointly(such as communication), is provided and financed through ti- can provide is police ser- lar ! vices. Pressure to control Equipment that individual units may special tax or assessment. it may incluc not be able to afford may be purchased all or part of individual sub-units. tcjointly. One example of a joint activity is Dissolution. There is no State manda ce i increasing costs for this the Yorktown Mobile Radio Unit.where that any municipality must have a poli service makes consolida- the mobile radio service of the City of department. Small municipalities th. !a. j lion a reasonable policy Peekskill, the Towns of Cortland, currently have departments may chop n" Putnam Valley,Sommers and Yorktown, to dissolve their police force and deper p! option to consider." and the Village of Buchanan are jointly upon coverage from the State Police < provided. county sheriff's department. all �nur ta.ar Issue Brief 1 two largest consolidated county police These and additional examples of consol- Experience in New York departments, the Nassau and Suffolk idation are briefly describea in Table 4. Some consolidated police services County Departments, are structurally. exist in many counties in New York. The as well as functionally. consolidated. Table 4 Examples of Consolidation Types in New York State Counties 1980 Muruetpaliues in County County Population Cities Towns Villages Types of Services on County L.e'ei Nassau 1321,582 2 3 64 County-wide police department. 23 villages ars not fully part of county department. Horever, all municipalities in county pay for some polio district services.1.284.231 — l0 30 16 villages have own police department. but all receive some service from district force. Erie 1.015.472 3 23 15 Ere County department of antral police services provides training, forensic services. communications information and technical services. Monroe 702,238 I 7A 10 A antral training facility at Monroe Community College,antral scientific laboratory, central dispatch. nonga Oda463.920 I 19 15 A antral training facility Onondaga Community College,law enforcement information 1 system — computer connection to all patrol vehicia. Rockland 259.530 — 5 17 A central training facility at Rockland County Fire Training Center. IOneida 253.466 3 26 19 A antral training facility at Mohawk Valley Community College. Niagara 227,354 3 12 5 A central training facility at Niagara County Community College. central scientific I Broome 213.618 I 16 17 laboratory. major case investigations unit. A antral training unit at Broome County Community College. Chataqua 146,925 2 27 15 A antral training unit at Jamestown Community College. 1 Ontario 88.909 2 16 9 A antral training facility at Finger lakes Community College. ; Source- Division of Criminal Justice Services-Bureau for Municipal Police.Police Administrative Services Unit. Case Studies communities in Onondaga County. A The parties involved could not come feasibility study done by the Division of to any agreement. "Policia" played a The lack of concise data and a clear Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) in major role. One said, "turf issues over- method for evaluation prompted Corn- 1985 reported favorably on consoli- rode fiscal considerations." At the tim< mission staff to choose case study dation. They estimated savings to the of the proposed consolidation it appeare:: . analyses as the best way to thoroughly Village of Solvay would have been that the village had more to gain from i' examine the issue of police consolidation. between 5:00,000 and 5500,000 annually than the town did. However,if there ww Commission staff selected six cases where — as much as 90 percent of the village's a duplication of service, savings woulc consolidation was seriously considered. total police expenditures. accrue for both in the long-run. The sample includes three cases where The pillage board and the police chief Although the consolidation did no some kind of consolidation occurred, in Solvay were reported to be in favor take place when proposed, a subsequen• and three cases where it did not. Selection of the consolidation, which, in their and fiscally "catastrophic" event ma was based on location, size, and type of opinion, would reduce costs and lead to e%entualls• trigger consolidation. A consolidation proposed. a more efficient department. At the same mentioned earlier in this report. th Populations of the communities in- time,Town of Geddes residents were less amount of money available to spcnc volved, shown in parentheses, are as of disposed toward consolidation because based on taxable full value rather tha April I, 1980. This is not a "scientific" they were concerned about the dilution size of municipality, is often a majo sample,but one which shows the specific of service. A disagreement arose over factor in considering consolidation. I issues addressed in typical consolidation control of the administration of the pro- 1984, Allied Chemical, the majc efforts. Table 5 provides an overview of posed police unit. According to reported employer in the arca, left. This resultc the case studies that follow. information, Solvay wanted equal in the loss of 1,500 jobs and 40 perxr representation with the Town of of the local tax base. Solvay/Geddes Proposed Consolidation Geddes. But Geddes; with twice the Both village and town officials note The Village of Solvay (7,140) and the population,favored a more proportional that tthe new fiscal environment n i onmemore t maa. c Town of Geddes (18,528) are adjacent representation. . slue rie Table S Summary of Case Studies for Commtmtties Cornaderint J arrint Delivery or Pollee Services Factors;hat ted to Those.no(simnel Nona considering desire:o change x't99o'xd Results of proposed ns ldmet Cdr..=of ono= ery studs;sten to Bass for decision corssoadatsoa studs oatom Eeaec:ed outcomes :onsotadatsoe consolidation serve Senvery' - r Feaatbtitty study by Savings in village village Board Beeston not to pro- So onolidauon. Tillie of GSeddes Porn nlTnty renal Town of Geddes :Wore efficient 9ureauaiMurucnpel of soh ay. more in 'a+or. snntfT seed bealuse town Cartentfocal strew Ponce. n•nouseefficient department. apposed. more and village animas Setiro f A :011260142- department. o9enrtwn ,a could tot agree tan enemtaaily. v sora es. tacit than vtilate. as terser. Studer conducted Savings of over mayor. sunny Resolutions d Comolidataoa L Lake d Saying oomY• occurred is t9 . Georg noosed pro- u>-bolsi. SI00.000 first year. otTscuh m favor. county board °� Results satafaaory. Warren County fessaonausm in more professional Police Conference sutse*"ssoes and part-(1171C poli a opposed. 'innate board. department. mincers. Consolidation. Town of Fiscal sayings for Local renew and money would he Torn police chief Ptoublic n heroard malt judged to he Queensbury town main slue. to-house study saved .n terms of opposed. elected to showed that savings insurance and oITictah of tows decision Worsen Countyshowed result from salaries split.sheriff favored. consolidation. general ofueury spin. City of Batavia Efficiency of Study by 9ureau Sasings for ;aunts. City in favor. town So va& died in No consolidation. patrols in residents opposed coenmttt . Unlikely to occur is Village of Leroy department, savings of Municipal Police. tenser pa ',silage resrSetses the (nitre. w Genesee County partscularty for studv studies in city and township. much oppoents City of 9auvta. county. Monroe County F'scal relief for Study Committee More eltcxne Favored by some Countywide refer- No consolidatwn. City of g Ville unification of Rochester. sill- L established Slier' force tax. merest A area defeated by lover ' tions ofrindivdual all Town 3 Villages d e tea°' of esic Leis! 2-to-I. all toren police functions oa cant police service man CammnteeL fiscal relief for Crr orlon the City at :ounty tenet County Legislative of Rochester. of Rochester. arid thecCata ity f a count:ern& levet s Committee repo consolidataoo. fas,snnt metro force i Hastings Committee). Vae of elected Consolidation Town of New PanicSawreason fiscal after ;own and In the opinion of The mayor and _ Village of New Paha a ,ant department village studies a the Board of Super- poiht chief to officals of town factory red uy >iliti etsted. the town formula was derived soar of tie town. silage were opposed and village. mayor. Loss village ogain was .lot satisfied to establish a town the outcome would to town police teal and :so sayings with a 50 50 town police depanrent be a more equitably department. town for tandge. Town .iilate :ontnbuuon funded r a town. funded police force st.perSsari `snored for slitcah a ow for via ser•wrs de ,barge. wwn department. fied. 'e 5. The village would continue to hire d village official suggested that the State the following proposal: g it play a role in mediating between parties 1. The sheriff would agree to hire all meter maids to enforce parking regula- LS in consolidation disputes. Whatever the existing village police officers as deputy tions. which historically was a large d final outcome. the Solvay Geddes con- sheriffs, and return them to the exist- source of village revenue. solidation points out that there arc ing village police headquarters. which Two public meetings were held on the at unique factors in individual communities would be a sheriff's substation. proposal. and a series of newsletters and zt that mitigate circumstances, and that 2. The village would lease the station to fact sheets were sent to all taxpayers tv broad generalizations are misleading. Warren County and turn over all assets following the agreement. and equipment of the department to The mayor and the county officials is the sheriff. were generally in favor of the merger. d.d' 3. The sheriff would hire. train and staff The Police Conference of New York. a Village of Lake George' Warren County in the station with a sufficient number Statewide association representing or The Village of Lake George (1,04') of officers during the busy summer municipal police officers, was oppose d. Ir. had operated a full-time police depart- season to insure a high quality of By dissolving the village department or ment since the 1930's. The department protection. traffic direction. etc. the officers would become members of ec was staffed with between four and five 4. Warren County and the Village of the sheriff's department which is not nt full-time officers, and was supplemented Lake George would enter into a five- affiliated with the Police Conference. each year during the summer by 25 to 30 year contract to insure a specified level The consolidation was approved in ed part-time officers. Rising costs, new of service that would call for the 1988 by both the Warren County Board .m training mandates, and problems with following payments from the village of Supervisors and the Lake George A summer help contributed to problems. to the county: S135,000 in the first Village Board. From all reports it ha: The mayor of Lake George approached year; Si65,000 in the second; and been very successful.The Mayor of Lake the Warren County(54,82_0) sheriff with 5180.000 in the last three years. George reports that more than 5100,00( "rntr•L:tat Issue Brief 1It is interesting to note the difference was�'saved during the first year of the Crri oJeara�ra. VillageoJLero.i between the proposed Sol•ay'Geddes contract — an amount equal to almost and Genesee County consolidation and Batavia and Leroy half of their prior rears'cost. The village DGS conducted a study in 1982 on combining with Genesee County. Cur- I won the Empire State Award. sponsored the advisability of combining the police rently,in Solvay and Geddes it is deemed y the New York State Conference of forces of the City of Batavia (16,'03). in the long run interest of both parties to Mayors, for this innovative approach to with 31 full-time officers, and the Village consolidate. There is the perception that providing police services. They also have of Leroy ).with 7 full-time officers, this will eventually happen. But in the received calls from numerous other corn- with Geneseeesee County's(59,100) 32 mem- Genesee County consolidation, even munities requesting information concern- ber force. Reportedly, Batavia's chief, some city officials conceded that TOV's ing police consolidation. police officers and the ;payor were gen- stand to lose by consolidation. The con- crony in favor of consolidation. The solidation attempt died in committee. Those police officers who transferred county sheriff was also reported in favor. Its clear thatallparties to the agree- to the sheriff's department did not lose any benefits. According to the mayor, Generally in consolidation, the salary merit must view it as beneficial, to some 1 the quality of the summer part-time of the combined force matches the salary degree, for eventual success. As one city officers has "mostly improved." The of the highest paid force participating official noted, "the consolidation [of mayor said that a key factor in successful in the consolidation. The Batavia for Batavia and Leroy, with the county consolidation is 'careful planning." It is salary was considerably higher than sheriffs force] is dead in. the water essential that officers have no decrease in Leroy. Not surprisingly, the police for good." fringe benefits as a result of a consolida- officers in Leroy were in favor, but the Monroe County Metropolitantion or contract. citizens were generally opposed. • IHere the-issue was local control. It police Force Consolidation was reported that citizens in Leroy were Monroe County (702,238), contains generally against consolidation "even if the City of Rochester(240,314),the third Town of Queensburyi Warren Countyit saved some money." However, it was largest city in New York State. In The Town of Queensbury (18,9 78) perceived by some that the consolidation December, 1982, a 107-page report was reports that the major factor in consider- would be more cpstly for Leroy. Accord- ing contracting with Warren County ing to a high officialissued, by the "Police Implementation in Batavia who Committee," a group composed of high (54,820) was fiscal rather than efficiency was strongly in favor of consolidation, ranking municipal business and com- of service. (n house studies showed that the consolidation "was killed by the munity officials. That report recom- the merger had a possibility of success. farmers," The town outside the village mended transfer of the Rochester Police The proposed changes were expected to (TOV) would have a tax increase for Department to Monroe County as the save money on salaries, expenses and a unified force but no perceived in- initial phase of forming a countywide insurance. At the time of the proposed creased benefit. The TOV judgement on police force which the town and village contract, the police chief and the police increased taxes resulting from consolida- police departments would eventually officers were generally opposed. The tion was probably correct. The Bureau join. At the time the implementation police chief would have lost his job as for o Municipal Police feasibility study report was issued, there were approxi- chief, and the officers feared a loss of pointed out that police services costs mately 1,077 full-time police officers in status. The Town Board was in favor of were 55.00 per 51.000 assessed valuation Monroe County: 606 in the City of the contract and so was the sheriff. The in the City of Batavia and 5.3: per 51.000 Rochester, 225 in the Monroe County citizens were divided. Public hearings in the TOVarea of Genesee County. An Sheriff's Department,and 246 officers in were held and the decision in favor of equalization of costs would be a detri- the town and village police forces. consolidation was made by the Town merit to those outside the city and village. The report stated that,"a single unified l Board and the County. The Town Super- Rural areas with minimal police coverage police department,countywide in scope, visor regards the consolidation as did not want to earn some of the city is essential."The Implementation Com- "extremely successful."The advice given burden. The Batavia police chief stated mince recommended the creation of an to others considering consolidation is. that City residents pay for patrol in entity called the Monroe County Police l look at dollars involved and be sure the areas outside the city as part of their Department directed by a chief of police that the personnel involved are guaran- tax support of the county sheriff. in teed protection so they don'tappointed by the county manager and lose accts- addition to city police costs, but receive confirmed by the county legislature. mulated leave, benefits. and retire- no benefit. Monroe County had, in fact, consoli- dated meat status." dated some services.There was a county J The sheriff stated. "a sheriff should police training academy and a county not be out drumming up business . . . "Generally inconsolida- tion, th crime laboratory. The combined cost of llion, the salary of the all the local policing in Monroe County [He) should let these decisions be made and its municipalities in 1982 was SSS by the towns and villages. . .[and should combined force matches million. At the time of the implementa- not be in] the consolidation business." tion Ian, there were 11 different polis: The sheriff also said, "you can't have a the salary of the highest P departments and the sheriffs depart- sheriff and a police chief do battle." paid force participating mens. The report stated that the polio Since sheriffs and police chiefs must to the consolidation." agencies and the sheriffs department work together, turf battles undermine were served in "fragmented" fashion, effective cooperation. I • issue lsriey and ttmayor. It meant a loss of local control, 'sat "in many cases if someone has and the cost of police services increased an accident on a suburban road . it is "Although a panel of high from 5600.000 in 1983 to 51,000,000 now. almost impossible to determine the ,lice jurisdiction responsible for the ranking officials recom- The mayor said that municipalities plan- ended accepting the re- Hing to restructure the delivery of police .estigation. mservices should carefully consider the would be S 1.6 million over the The estimated cost of consolidation port, not a single munici- control that they may lose as a result current cost. The report recommended a one pality voted in favor of it of cha satisfaction with tlx consolidation nge. percent increase in the county sales _. even the municipality appears to be greater with town officials Police Department.'One of the tax to aid in paying for the "Monroe with the most to gain, the solicited than with village. In the town's opinion, the arrangement is more chief reasons for suggestion of the con- City of Rochester.Accord- opinion,ffective and newient than the prior joint solidated force was that the City of ing to the mayor of a department. Rochester was in severe fiscal distress, community that voted and it viewed the-county police depart- ment'as a fiscally sound venture. against the consolidation, Concttision • The Police implementation Commit- there would be `a loss of Control, no cost savings, Experiential data from the cases tee found that "no state statute would studied showed that each community ingractou adoption of department." local law create 'everything to lose and perceives "unique' problems that make ing a county police de artment." State its case special. Therefore, general judg- legislation. however,would be necessary nothing.much to gain.' " to increase the county sales tax from menu on whether or not consolidation three percent to four percent. should take place based ontion need to be augmentedby size or loreful ca- Another arca requiring State legisla- review and input from the people tion would p the fof the Monroe New ch as the County Deputy 'sSheriffs tothe State houses However, S ate UniversitylCollege►at major industrygin Geddes that nt factors, left own. olice and Firemen's Pension System.w Generally, in a consolidation when New i- dwellPsltz by3housands during the school lati nnd this increases the village the ein Lake George, the pe in ry nce of popu- groupsmer a with differentapay scales co nd date, the pension and pay benefits of the year. It also increases the policing needs major collegosiuon likech as thain t+in Genaesee highest paid groups are the norm. State of the village. This helped to trigger a farmers opp ;aw prohibits pensions of state employees basic disagreementon controlhe and distper- r- County, are shonot enericon feasibility problems. to be cut. Of course. there would be no centages to be paid s of incentive to enter a consolidation if some tion oft ne otnt happywice th tpartment. The hc formula of each 1emunacipal municipality nvolvpedifn conc sder- officer were to receive less benefits. town a SO 50 distribution of payments to the ing consolidation. A referendum was planned for 1983 joint department. The town felt that for residents of Monroe County to decidealthough they paid half of the cost, the "Experiential data from whether or not t accept the consolidated village received more than half of the Monroe County Police Department. police sea ices. the cases studied showed Although a panel of high ranking offs- " A proposal was made to have a town- cials recommended accepting the report. wide charge for police services. The basic that each community per- not a single municipality voted in favor control of the department would shift ceives 'unique' problems of it - even the municipality with the totally to the town rather than continuing most to gain, the City of Rochester. under joint control. The input of the that make its case special According to the mayor of a community village in determining police policy Therefore, general judg- that voted against the consolidation, would diminish. ments on whether or not there would everything"a loss of control, no cost villageopposedconsolidation should take much to gain." to lose and nothing to The unified he mayor°t f twnhe department and so place based on size or much gain." was the chief of police. However, the location need to be town board was in favor,and a tow nwide merited by careful review aug- department was established in 1983. The Ton and Village of New Pali_ current New Paltz police force has The Town of New Paltz (10.183) and approximately 23 full- and part-time and input from the people the Village of New Paltz (4,938) had a sworn officers. However, this does not affected „ joint police department prior to 1983. include police and security on the college Both the village and the town paid half campus. The department is now under the cost and jointly appointed a com- town control with diminished village somei genetheseoccaveats, there that still alc re missioner. The population of the village input into police function. co and the town outside the village were The unified department was seen as a prove useful toof col ce unities explon nl disadvantage to the village bythe village the q nearly equally. State•LAnl Issue Brief r primarily. that fiscal considerations are minant of per capita police costs for A countywide referendum for strut- not always the pivotal concern. The small. New York communities. Here, full tura) consolidation with municipalities desire for local control may take prece- value of real property is a better indicator of diverse wealth. size and structure has rice over cost savings. Union considera- of their per capita police costs. had difficulty in passing. Where it is Mons,job security, and local population Still, functional consolidations appear possible to consolidate without a refer- sensitivities may also be primary factors to be worthwhile considerations for small endum, chances may be better. to consider. The relationships between police departments. In most cases where Finally, feasibility studies are essential the sheriff and the local officials are functional consolidations have taken for those municipalities considering con- also important. place, they appear to be succssful. The solidation. These studies can be done by Although population size is related to consolidation of communications, train- outside consultants, but the Division of per capita police costs in communities ing, laboratory services, and technical Criminal Justice Services will do them at with over 10,000 people nationally, expertise have been to the advantage of no cost to the municipalities. population size is not a significant deter- most police districts. This Issue Brief was written by Joseph Krausman, Research Analyst, and Thomas R. Bodden, Director of Research and Publications. Notes United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice, Washington, D.C.: 1988, p. 63. 2 The New York Times, August 15, 1989, p. A14. t National Advisory Commission Crimi- nal Justice Standards and Goals,Report on Police, Washington, D.C.: 1973, p. 105. Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York Slate Municipal Police Employees, 1986. s Commission staff compilation of data from the Office of the State Comptroller for fiscal years ending in 1987. Commission staff analysis of data from the Office of the State Comptroller. , New York State Legislative Commission on State-Local Relations, Issue Brief, "Cost Savings Through Service Consoli- dation?"Albany,NY:March, 1989,p.3. 1 . I l Appendix I I Response letters of Chiefs Rivera and Keresey to the Preliminary Report I 1 This report is the final version of an administrative study report prepared for the Village of Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck Police Departments. The report was first prepared and released in preliminary form to afford the chiefs of both police departments the opportunity to review the report and submit comments regarding any errors, omissions or similar concerns, along • with any supporting data. Chief Keresey and Chief Rivera both submitted written responses to the preliminary report, copies of which are included in this appendix. BMP nave careful consideration to the concerns expressed in both responses and where appropriate (in the opinion of BMP staff) made changes in the applicable sections of the report. In some instances, the professional opinions of BMP staff may have differed from the chiefs and we noted so in the body of the report. In other instances, BVfP may have felt that the concern(s) raised were not characterized as errors or omissions and accordingly were not addressed. Police Department Office of ri—Ellg 120 Larchmonc Avenue WILLIAM J. KERESEY, Ill Larchmonc.N.Y. 10538-3795 Tel. (9 14)834-1000 Chief of Police _ - Fax.(9 14) 834-1050 U "ro Rer+e With Concern' VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF POLICE 12 March 1997 Mr. Stephen Bernardi - j Deputy Commissioner Office of Public Safety Division of Criminal Justice Services MAR 1 4 seT Executive Park Tower Stuyvesant Plaza Albany, New York 12203-3764 Dear Mr. Bernardi: I wish to thank the Division of Criminal Justice Services for the detailed evaluation and study received by me on 3 March 1997, regarding the consolidation feasibility of the police departments in Mamaroneck Town and Larchmont Village. In particular the efforts__by_F` William-Kervanare sincerely appreciated. His approach was sensitiveto -the needs of the two communities and professional in his desire to ascertain the most efficient and economical scenarios for the departments and municipalities involved. In my opinion the study' s presentation is clear, concise, and very readable. In some ways the findings were strikingly similar to those presented by your agency_b?;previous-_cccas.ions,,;jnos ,-recentivthe study .of Maw? However, in my opinio ' a major flaw exi 'ts in the February 1997 study, which drasticall f nd-t' gates the conclusions as they pertain to the staffing of patrol personnel and the relevant budgetary impact. Additionally, less significant oversights and/or omissions are apparent and require further analysis . The affect of these short-comings on the study as a whole and specifically to Larchmont is detailed in the following: Page 1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE STUDY A. LPD POSITION: The study incorporates a calculation error namely, the thirty minute response time formula. PLANATION: On pages 17 and 18 , subdivision ( 2 ) , it is noted that a figure of thirty minutes is utilized as the average time required to respond and investigate a call. The study states , "This was discussed with both Chief Rivera and Chief Keresey and they agreed that the thirty minute figure was appropriate for this study. " During my personal interview with Bill Kervan, Z. rremember_ no _such discussion regarding a thirty minute formula. My only recollection regarding this matter was during a telephone call in November or December 1996 when I called to inquire as to the status of the study. I was advised that the study was near completion. During the course of that general conversation I was informed that a thirty minute average formula had been utilized because of the rapid response time in our two relatively small communities . Thirty minutes was selected from a scale ranging from thirty to forty-five minutes. I acquiesced at the time, in agreement that our response time is remarkable at 1-3 minutes for any priority call. I question if a consolidated department will retain this significant factor. Response time is a critical factor that is not addressed in the study and it should be. However, had I had the opportunity to properly contemplate and discuss this matter with Mr. Kervan, I would have drawn the conclusion that thirty minutes does not accurately reflect the average in the Village of Larchmont. Larchmont Response Guidelines -- The hallmark of the Larchment Police Department is its personalized service. Police officers are trained to extend themselves and their services whenever possible . Routine calls are habitually utilized as opportunities to educate and inform the public and to encourage a community oriented policing environment. That was a fact in Larchmont long before the "buzz word" Community Oriented Policing became fashionable. The study will do the Larchmont Police Department and its community a disservice by not extending the response time to the maximum acceptable number of forty-five minutes and recalculating the analysis . When Vincent A. La Fleur of BMP completed a study of the two departments in May of 1973 , the forty-five minute formula was utilized. ( See the attached copies of Pages 9 and 10 of said delivery of services during the past two decades . Larchmont Police is a far more community oriented and personalized service agency than it ever dreamed of being in 1973 . With our response _ t me-1 a-same _now as-j.t was_then, it makes no sense-to m`e�to • Page 2 +. .. revert from a forty-five minute formula to a thirty minute formula. This is particularly true as the level of personalized service has increased measurably. Without a doubt, forty-five minutes is much more representative of conditions as they currently exist. 1 A revised formula of forty-five minutesincreases the number of patrol personnel required from 24 to 34 , obviously a considerable difference.-' (See Attachment Number Two. ) Certainly, this dramatically effects the impact on the budgetary projections of the study. Coincidentally and interestingly enough, the recommended complement of patrol officers in the 1973 study was 34 . B. LPD POSITION: Delete the reference on Pages 17-18 , "This was discussed with both Chief Rivera and Chief Keresey and they agreed that the thirty minute figure was appropriate for this • study. " • EXPLANATION: I insist that my name be removed from page 18, wherein it is indicated that I agreed that a thirty minute fv,gure was appropriate for this study. I was not afforded the opportunity to provide input on this matter. I do not agree with the formula. I further request the study mention I strongly disagree with thirty minutes and that I embrace forty-five minutes as being more reflective of the police service currently expected and provided. It is my firm belief that the study underestimates the level, nature and demand of the police service as it exists in the Village of Larchmont. C. LPD POSITION: The study' s analysis and provision for an Administrative Division fails to speak to the many tasks of this essential component and who will carry out their function. In Larchmont, many are completed by first line supervisors under the direction of Command Officers. EXPLANATION: who will fulfill the functions necessary to direct, supervise and execute such operations as internal affairs, communications/records, training, traffic, firearms and tactics, fleet maintenance and inspections? The study creates an Administrative Division, recreated from the one currently in . place in Mamaroneck Town. Apparently that division consists of a Lieutenant and civilians with no uniformed support to carry out its functions . In Larchmont, civilian and patrol supervisors assist a Lieutenant in the function of Staff and Auxiliary responsibilities. Patrol supervisors attend to these matters during periods of time when their services are not required on the street. Page 3 Given the fact that it is the study' s intention to extend the Span of Control of the Patrol Lieutenant and the patrol supervisors in the Patrol Division, both in terms of number of personnel to be supervised and the distance involved, I no longer see them capable of wearing multiple hats . They will not be able to perform to any real extent Staff and Auxiliary duties . Is it reasonable to assume that the Administrative function of a 40-50 member department can function well with a Lieutenant and a few civilians? Can it function in this manner without a great deal of support from the Patrol Division other personnel as is currently the case in Larchmont? D. LPD POSITION: The study provides for an inadequate deployment of personnel for Administrative functions . EXPLANATION: One cannot expand the Span of Control of supervisory personnel and concurrently expect them to carry out the additional functions of Staff and Auxiliary services . An appropriate number of officers should be added to the administrative function necessary to fulfill its mission, perhaps a Sergeant and Police Officer or two police officers. E. LPD POSITION: The feasibility of Civilian Dispatchers is inadequately addressed. EXPLANATION: The study notes that civilian dispatchers are legally utilized by municipalities in New York State outside of Westchester County. That is not a matter of contention and is not the question to be addressed. In fact, civilian dispatchers are presently legally utilized by some police departments in Westchester County. The question has been for Larchmont and might be in a consolidated effort: Can the Westchester County Civil Service Job Description, which mandates dispatchers to perform, "Under the direct supervision of a police officer" be in some manner circumvented or resolved? ( See attachment Number Three. ) The study should address the feasibility of Civilian Desk Dispatchers , as--theif -function is perceived- by"Wetne- ter County Civil Service. - It also must be considered that Police Officers as Desk Officers • are responsible for the supervision of prisoners. The study should address the legality of civilians monitoring prisoners:. ; If they are not to-be monitored by"civilians"'w1:o" will`monitor- �° them and how will that function be performed? F. LPD POSITION: The study does not properly inform the reader of the consequences of projected savings through personnel reduction, vis-a-vis police presence. Police Presence is • critical to the citizens of Larchmont. EXPLANATION: The study indicates on page 27 that, "Our examination of the situation in Mamaroneck/Larchmont leads us to Page 4 believe that consolidation of the town agencies into one town department is feasible and that it would save taxpayers a substantial amount of money. " The savings amount to two and one half million dollars. No one could dispute the desire to save such a substantial sum of money. But, at what cost to services? No where in the report, and specifically not under "Disadvantages of Consolidation, " does it explain to the tax payer the cost in relation to a reduction in Police Presence. Certainly, 24 officers in lieu of 34 will result in a reduction of police presence and does so thusly: Currently, between the two municipalities the public sees on the street during the course of a twenty-four hour day, 21 police officers, including Sergeants. The study proposes in the same time frame, 15 officers including Sergeants. This represents a net reduction of 29 per cent. would you not agree that at some juncture, the study should bring this to the attention of the public? Should the report not inform the public that with said savings it is very possible or simply lust possible that the quantity and quality of police service and police presence will be directly and substantially affected by such a reduction of police personnel? 1 A thirty minute average call mandates 24 police officers, a forty-five minute average call mandates 34 police officers. which formula is the one appropriate for Larchmont? The report has an obligation to either present a formula believed to be truly representative of the community or to let the community decide. Either way the report has an obligation to inform the tax payer of exactly what level of service his money will provide. G. LPD POSITION: The study provides a superficial analysis of budgetary considerations. EXPLANATION: The budgetary analysis provides a lump sum savings amount provided entirely from a proposed reduction in personnel. However, other than "salary, " there is no analysis of operating expenses . • A detailed financial analysis, perhaps in the form of a prototypical budget, should be developed, including: operating expenses, headquarters, motor vehicle expenses, etc . The analysis should clearly specify savings and the cost of police services as they apply separately to the Village of Larchmont and to the Town of Mamaroneck. Page 5 FINAL OBSERVATIONS: It is noted on page 29 , Subdivision ( 2 ) under "Disadvantages of Consolidation" that, "The data presented to BMP indicates that the majority of the workload is located in the village of Larchmont. Lower overall staffing levels may thus result in fewer proactive patrols being available to serve the Town of Mamaroneck. " In conjunction with that, it appears to me that the major trade-offs for "A savings of two and one half million�� are: 1 ) Less proactive patrol in Mamaroneck Town, 2 ) Less quality time from police for Larchmont' s citizens, 3 ) Diminution of a police presence in both communities , 4 ) Supervisory personnel to perform staff and auxiliary services, notwithstanding their increased Span of Control. • I do not believe your study as it stands should be presented as a final document. Whether it is or not, I strongly encourage you in the best interests of the citizens of Larchmont, to furnish for their consideration that which was quoted on page 2 of the "Bureau for Municipal Police Study Larchmont/Mamaroneck Town" in 1973 . The quotation is from a National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Services Standards and Goals , entitled, "The Police. " In my opinion it is as salient an observation today as it was then and it would help the community to keep a proper perspective in their deliberations : "No State or local government or police agency should enter into any agreement for or participate in any police service that would not be responsive to the needs of its jurisdiction and that does not at least: . * Maintain the current level of a service at a reduced cost. * Improve the current level of a service either at the same cost or at an increased cost if justified; or * Provide an additional service at least as effectively and economically as it could be provided by the agency alone. " In my judgement, as the study stands now, the recommendations do not maintain the current level of a service at a reduced cost. They do not improve the current level of a service either at the same cost or at an increased cost if justified, nor do they provide an additional service at least as effectively and economically as it could be provided by the agency alone. Page 6 However, only the community can determine what level of police service it desires and to what extent it has the ability and is willing to pay for it . The study to be presented to the community by Bureau for Municipal Police must properly inform the community as to its options and consequences of their decisions. I believe that this study falls short of that obligation. I hope that ycu have found my _cmments helpful. Of course, I am 1 available to you to discuss any aspect of same at your convenience. Again, thank you for your time and effort on this essential issue and please be assured of this department' s continued cooperation in all matters of mutual concern. Sincerely, 1 ��'Tsi+GzliAl� WILLIAM J K nY Chief of Police WJK/ " Enol: ( 1) Copy Pages 9 & 10 , Consolidation Study, May 1973 ( 2 ) LPD Proposed Revised Formula for Patrol Staffing ( 3 ) Westchester County Civil Service Job Description for Civilian Dispatchers Copy to: ( 1) Mayor Cheryl Lewy ( 2) Village Attorney James Staudt ( 3 ) Chief Richard Rivera, MTP Page 7 attachment One 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. _ u37. 7.8 of the days workload 4 p.m. - 12 M. 48 . 18% of the days workload 12 M. - 8 a.m,. 14. 03% of the days workload Although this might indicate a degree of workload stability, t, ; ofnatureconstantly be undertaken to ascertain studies this shcd with exactness , variances in total workload requirements. 1 Calculatinc the Recuired Number ur: 3eats or Posts Previous studies have shown that the average time required to investigate a case at- the preliminary level by members of a patrol division is 45 minutes. After application o this factor and making allowances for buffer time and repressive patrol time, t:.e number of beats or p;sts to be patrolled can be determined. 1 We will use the combinea number of incidents for both Departments : 1 For the 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. shift: Number of incidents for the year 6, 272 Multiplied by , 75 hours (43 minutes) 4, 704 hours Multiplied by 3 (to add buffer factor and time for routine patrol) 141, 112 total hours Divided by number of hours necessary to ,.an 1 oatrol beat cn one shift for one year. _(8 x 363 or 2920) • = 4..83 or 5 beats • - or posts For the 4 p.m. - 12 M. shift: Number of incidents for the year 6 , 902 Multiplied by . 73 hours (45 minutes) 5 , 176.50 hours 1 IAC? survey of the To-•r11 of Ma.^.,;o:o_^_cc:• P. D. , 1063, rg. 18. Prepared by the Bureau for Police, State of Ncw York. Multiplied by 3 (to add buffer factor and time for routine patrol) 15 , 529. 50 hours 1 " Divided by number of hours necessary to man 1 patrol beat or. one shift for one year = 5 . 32 or 5 beats or posts For the 12 M. to 8 a.m. shift: Number of incidents for the year 2, 364 Multiplied by . 75 hours (45minutes) 1, 773 hours Multiplied by 3 (to add buffer factor and time for routine patrol) 5 , 319 Divided by number of hours necessary to man 1 patrol beat on one shift for one year = 1. 82 or 2 beats or posts The beat or pest configuration should be determined by using a map of the jurisdictions patrolled by the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmon t Police Departments and spotting the A location of the calls for service, or making a network of uniformly spaced horizontal ander:end _cular lines as a grid for locating p -• points by means of coordinates and using this as a basis for post configuration. Prepared by the bureau for Muni-:12:il Polic:e, State of Now Yor .. I't, sII ATTACHMENT TWO IFORMULA FOR NECESSARY NUMBER OF PATROL POSTS: 1 APPRCX:MATE TIME EXPENDED — BOTH DEPARTMENTS ( . 75 AVERAGE) NIGHTS 3 , 370 I DAYS 6 , 362 EVENINGS 5 ,781 PROJECTED TIME EXPENDED — BOTH DEPARTMENTS NIGHTS 10 , 100 DAYS 19,086 1 EVENINGS 17, 343 - MIN. POSTS NEEDED — ADJUSTED 1 NIGHTS 3 . 46 4 DAYS 6 . 53 7 EVENINGS 5 . 93 6 **ALTOGETHER, A CONSOLIDATED POLICE DEPT. WOULD REQUIRED 17 POSTS** 1 PATROL STAFF REQUIREMENTS: 1 SHIFT POSTS A/F NUMBER ACTUAL NUMBER NIGHTS 4 1 . 96 7 . 84 8 l DAYS 7 1 . 96 13 . 72 14 EVENINGS 6 1 . 96 11 . 76 12 **34 UNIFORMED PERSONNEL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO CALLS FOR I SERVICES IN A CONSOLIDATED TOWN/VILLAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.** 1 1 i POLICE DISPATCHER I. .. .: GENERAL STATEMENT OF DUTIES: Under the direct supervision of a Police Officer, receives, relays and records police alarms; does related work as required. DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE CLASS: Under the direct supervision of a Police Officer, the employee in this class has the responsibility For the operation of a two-way communications system in receiving, sending and monitoring messages in a municipal Police Department communication system. The incumbent in this position requires a high degree of accuracy and alertness in dispatching police vehicles to disorders and complaints in accordance with prescribed routine. A Police Dis- patcher may be required to wear a prescribed uniform (not a police uniform) , but does not perform general police duties. This work requires the ability to readily learn how to operate the specific police communication system and the ability to keep and maintain records of average complexity. Supervision is not usually a responsibility of this position. EXAMPLES OF WORK: (Illustrative Only) Receives, relays, and records police alarms, other messages, and signals coming in over the police communication system; Receives complaints from the public concerning crimes and police emergencies; Broadcasts orders to police patrol units to investigate complaints or incidents and relays instructions and/or questions; Prepares and maintains a log or record of all incoming and outgoing communica- tions; g g Receives, transmits and otherwise operates various communication devices such as CRT terminals, teletype, TWIX, etc. ; Maintains current Frequency modulation checks for all cars and periodically checks to measure frequency modulation deviations of transmitters; May perform clerical work of average difficulty including Filing, typing (some) , and assisting in the taking of inventory. REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITIES AND ATTRIBUTES: Good knowledge of the methods and practices of operating radio equipment; good knowledge of the geogra- phy of the policing jurisdiction; working knowledge of Federal Communication Commission Rules and Regulations pertaining to transmitting and receiving messages by short wave radio; ability to perform calmly and efficiently in emergency situations; ability to learn how to operate police station equipment including communications equipment and automated data retrieval equipment; ability to follow oral and written instructions; ability to write legibly; clear diction; clerical aptitude; mental alertness; good judgment in emergencies; tact; courtesy; emotional stability; physical condition commensurate with the demands of the position. P J24 30-1 POLICE DISPATCHER' Page 2 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE: Graduation From a standard high school course or possession of a high school euivalency diploma. I I I 1 I 1 Towns, Villages, J. C. : competitive Cities of Rye & Job Class Code: 0144 Peekskill Revised: 4/9/87 JMV P J24 30-2 Mamaroneck Town Police Town Center 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543-3319 914/3$1-6100 4 Office of the Police Chief _v • LV!A Ex PES fr;A i_) W4R 171987 March 17 , 1997 Mr. Stephen Bernardi Deputy Commissioner Office of Public Safety State of New York DCJS • Executive Park Tower, Stuyvesant Plaza Albany, New York 12203-3764 Dear Mr. Bernardi : Please be advised that I have received a copy of the Preliminary Report recently issued by your office concerning the feasibility of consolidating the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont Police Departments. I have a few comments regarding specific areas of the report. 1) On page V, paragraph 11, sentence #2 which starts with the words, "For them. " Does "them" refer to Village of Larchmont officials or Town of Mamaroneck officials and/or residents? This sentence appears to refer to the Village of Larchmont, but it seems to me that the concern would be the Town of Mamaroneck' s. 2) On page 3 , second paragraph from the top, the sentence, in referring to the Town of Mamaroneck Police, reads as follows: "The department usually deploys three patrol units on each of the three work shifts in addition to a sergeant who is assigned to the desk/dispatch position. " In actuality, this department usually deploys three patrol units, one desk officer with the rank of police officer, and one road patrol sergeant. A Patrol Division Lieutenant is also on duty, normally, during the day tour (0800 - 1600) , and evening tour (1600 - 2400) and acts as the Tour Commander. tit Printed on aecycled Paper f• r. There are times when, due to the absence from duty of police officers, (sick, vacation, personal days off, etc. ) when a sergeant is assigned to desk duty in place of a police offi- cer. 3) Page 17 , paragraph numbered "1" . The second and third sentences read, "A call for service is not limited to a complaint in the department's record system. Rather, it includes any instance in which an officer is dispatched to provide service or initiates activity (for example, a traffic stop) . " Please be advised that this department does not count traffic "stops" as calls for service, nor would our records (blotter entries) reflect normal traffic "stops" as calls for service for which a "dispatch" would be made. We do, however, record Vehicle and Traffic Law summonses for which traffic stops have been made. After making adjustments for multiple summons issuances and VTL misdemeanor arrests which were counted in our original figures, a low estimate ( low because a summons is not neces- sarily issued during each traffic stop) of traffic stops is as follows: Mid to 8AM Tour 8AM to 4PM Tour 4PM to Midnight Tour 121 stops 465 stops 539 stops Total : 1, 125 traffic stops Please consider adding this total to your figures . 4) Page 17 , paragraph numbered "2" regarding the average time required to respond to a call and complete the preliminary investigation. Although it may take an officer an average time of thirty minutes to respond to a routine call and collect preliminary information for a report, the patrol officer's work is by no means over. The time required to collect information is strongly dependant upon the type of complaint or incident being investigated. (For example, a routine, natural death investigation could require the services of an officer for several hours ! ) } The officer then must prepare reports which could include incident reports, complaint reports , accident reports, arrest reports, summonses, youth reports, and internal memorandums . I -2- I 1 I • He/she may also be required to make notifications, accompany a victim or prisoner to the hospital, prepare property re- ceipts, administer sobriety tests, bring a prisoner before a judge, transport a prisoner to county jail facilities, etc. , all of which would preclude the officer' s return to patrol 1 duties for some time beyond thirty minutes. Although our response time 12 all calls for service is very 1 fast, and I am confident that it would remain so in a suffi- ciently staffed consolidated department, I feel that the formula used on page 17 of your report should reflect the forty-five minute figure . J 5) Page 13 : 1 The number of calls for service in the Town of Mamaroneck is incorrect. The numbers do not accurately reflect calls which I required the dispatch of two officers. These calls should have been multiplied by 2 to accura ely show manpower hours. (Please refer to BMP Administrative Study Checklist, p. 2 . ) The report' s figure should reflect 4 , 674 more calls for service. 1 6) Page 22 , the next to last paragraph regarding the D.A.R. E. program. There are a total of five schools in the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmcnt where the D.A.R. E. program is taught. Four of those schools are located in the Town of Mamaroneck. I Also, in addition to teaching the fifth graders, (usually between two and three hundred children during each session) the Town of Mamaroneck D.A.R. E. program conducts a "Junior i High" component in the two schools (Hommocks School and Saints John and Paul School) which have junior high school aged children attending. 1 7) Page 26, under the "Administration" column the report mentions i "6 Uniformed Dispatchers" . By "uniformed" may I assume the report means sworn police officers? i8) On page 8 under the heading, "Consolidation Overview" , the j first sentence in paragraph 12 states, "It is a commonly held �l belief that smaller police agencies tend to operate less 1 I efficiently than larger organizations. " Is this the view of the Bureau of Municipal Police? If so, is there documentation to support this belief? v i -3- I , Please take my comments into consideration while preparing your ' Final report. Thank you for your efforts and those of your staff, and please be assured of this department' s full cooperation with your study. Sincerely Richard Rivera Chief of Police cc. Elaine Price, Town -Supervisor Executive Lieutenant Robert Koziak TMPD Chief William Keresey, Larchmont P. D. • 1 -4- 1 I C'.T7 i6 We( Gt6/Wak Motofl 1-y • °T45-08•441 Cieeif ' --- i INews PC MK Monday,August 25,1997 $ HI Cary:637-2203 i 6 study: Cop merger .. would save $1 .35M , . State report urges consideration of Larchmont-Marnaroneck ties ; By Noreen O'Donnell1k' K11 z1y` J J ,' A It Staff Writer 3 .. yv �� Merging the Larchmont and town of Mamaroneck police de- ..:.:„,,.: '.. partments would save $1.35 mil- Merging the i;:archinont and graphic is perspectiv. . �•; lion a year and still provide an towa of Mainaroneyck police N Better coordination()flaw'- adequate level of protection, a departments would present enforcement services. state study concludes. both advantages and disad- vantages; notes a study by the Disadvantages The report, which the town state Division of Criminal Jos- 9 Larchmont officials may and village requested two years tiee Services, Here are some feet a loss of control over their ago,stops short of recommending of those: police officers and will have less a merger, but says consolidation say in the operation of consol i- of some kind warrants further Advantages dated department Larchmont consideration. B Estimated annual savings may liist'.p sense ofconimunit of' ,1.35 million while still pro- �� . "This is a community deci- £ 'vidint, a sufficient number of identity. sion," Larchmont Police Chief t. Brice officers in the two colic- N Fewer proactive parols William J. Keresey III said. l 'zrmnities will be available to serve both "This is saying to the community, IP Ili Legally easy to ac crnupl- l.archiiiontand Mamaroneck. 'You must take a look at this,and k ish.L,1I,i, nontcouldabolishits B A substantial number of decide whether or not you want V. police department through a career police officers could lose to retain the same level of serv- village resolution. .heir jobs. ice you have now and whether ii., 9 Makes sense from a geo- --Noreen O'Donnell you can afford it.' • i "You can save $1.3 million by Measuring how much that re- cers,the report says. :,- sponse to minor services means The next ste the re ort say?;, downsizing and having a depart- to residents is critical, says p' p ment that is about three-fourths Larchmont Trustee Judy O'Gor would be for a committee bf the size, but (the report) pointsman, the Board of Trustees' po representatives from both multi- I out that it would be with a reduc- lice commissioner. cipalities to study the report and tion of services,"he said. make recommendations. "The police department does "That' As envisioned by the state Di- a good recommends - all kinds of things that you don't vision of Criminal Justice Serv- necessarily know about until you tion, with the police departments ices, a consolidated department y involved from the beginning," would have 52 officers, down have use for it—how they hand Mamaroneck Town Supervispr from a combined total of 68.With le a death in the home, a natural Elaine Price said. "Let's see:if I death of someone who is 90 years there's anything we can do. both departments spending more old and doesn't get up," she said. than 90 percent of their budgets "It's probably very different "You need a lot of confidence on personnel, the cut in staff from a large urban police force, and security and the feeling that represents most of the estimated That's part of the level of serv- we're dealing with it in very savings. ice." , positive ways," she said. "Every- One drawback noted in the "The report was pretty much a one will have a say." report: Fewer officers would straight mathematical break- The topic is sure to raise pas- mean fewer patrols for crime down of— 'If you had this fewer sions. For all the residents who prevention and other proactive people, this is how much money want to save money on their fax work. you would save,'"she said. bills, others oppose any change Both police chiefs argue that Short of a full merger, the in the level of attention they get 52 officers would be too few. The report suggests the communities from their police. Calls to the departments in the small, rely state underestimated the average consider dispatching officers time officers spend on calls, they from a single townwide opera tively wealthy municipalities are say. tion. A call box could be as likely to be about annoying peddlers or noisy leaf blowers,;as "For both the village and the mounted outside the Larchmont about burglaries or other serious town, we would need between 55 police station. crimes. and 60 people," Mamaroneck Consolidating desk duties The idea of consolidating the Chief Richard Rivera said. would require six fewer officers forces is not new. The state com- "I don't think emergency re= in Larchmont, it notes, though a pleted a similar study 20 years i sponse will be affected by consol- civilian could staff the village ago, but nothing ever came of'it. idation if we have enough men," police station during business The issue was revived two years I he said. "And we respond to hours Monday through Friday. ago when a committee of resi- minor complaints, if we have For further savings, the com- dents reviewing the town's bud- people available,which is most of munities could use civilian dis- get predicted savings of $2 tail- the time." patchers rather than police offi- lion with no decrease in service,. r