The Consent Calendar was approved with a vote of 5-0. With that came the following: Gary Thornhill as interim City Manager, Chief Brown as our new Fire Chief (no longer interim), and Tami Wilhelm was appointed to the Planning Commission. Last I knew, Tami Wilhelm lived in county.
For those of you who thought Jeff Stone didn't care about destroying our city any further after his recent election to State Senate, do yourselves and continue to pay attention. I wonder if you will still agree. For those of you knowledgeable in politics 101, well, you knew better.
Gary Thornhill, yes the same guy from before, is now our Interim City Manager; a step-up from his last job here in Hemet. He lives in Temecula (Please read his contract. You may find parts interesting. It is in the full agenda.). As we all know, he was involved in the last contracting-out agenda. What I want to know is... why is he back? Supposedly, we have a new council majority. They got rid of Hill to bring in Thornhill for at least six months. Does that make any sense? I agree, that he is smarter than Hill. However, we know his intentions. So council majority; you got some explaining to do unless you feel we are not privy to that information. A mutual feeling you would then share with the last council majority. I actually went a step further on this and asked people with a psych background why they might go in this direction. In all honesty, I was trying to genuinely understand where they might be coming from. The response was... It's familiar, quick and didn't require a lot of work on their part. Make your own assessment.
The difference this time is that the council majority and Vail have an intense desire to contract out our water department. This idea started, that we know of, about a year ago. Council already voted to raise rates a couple meetings back. If we contract out, are those rates going to go up or down? :-) We all know they will go up. Here is how they plan on justifying the consultant- we need to conserve water and we are not sure if we are doing everything we can do to do that because we have nothing to compare it to, so let's see if we can look at other companies and compare. Prepare yourselves for a vote to approve a consultant to come in and evaluate for the approximate price tag of $80,000. If we are going to go off prior decisions, I guess I should say first consultant.
Raver suggested waiting for the new city manager to discuss this topic at a council meeting because he is quite knowledgeable in this department. I don't know if Raver is going to try to mentally spar with him but for this suggestion to come from someone who supposedly has no interest in contracting out because rates will increase- it was interesting.
Is anyone else tired of this yet?
Monday, April 20, 2015
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Strategic Plan
The plan will cost roughly $444,000 to implement in its first year. The remaining cost per year will depend on the items outlined in years 2-5 that are deemed essential as a follow-up to year one's implementation. The strategy is aggressive with the largest percentage of the plan due to implement in year one. Hiring more officers is a priority. The council approved $30k several meetings ago for an aggressive campaign to attract and hire laterals.
There is funding for a crime suppression unit through a federal grant that needs to be implemented asap or the funds will be taken away. The reason this unit has not been implemented is due to the shortage of officers.
One of the main and most needed components is a drug unit, which is lacking from the ENTIRE valley. Drugs are our main problem! It is the main source of our crime and continuing to spread at a rapid pace. I have heard this not only from residents and officers during ride-alongs, but also our Police Chief. We need more officers so that we can get this established.
Building a relationship between the department and its citizens is also a crucial step in this process. If we do not start building that up, then the issues will continue. One way PD is setting out to accomplish this is through community outreach including a "Speakers Bureau" to speak at community meetings and events, holding quarterly "Crime and Safety Update" meetings, contributing monthly articles in the Valley Chronicle and publish a Police Department Annual Report. Of course, they will be amping up their presence on social media and utilizing sites such as nextdoor.com and crime reports.com.
Increasing patrol time by 40% per officer: They are going about this through technology and utilizing community service officers to respond to non-emergency calls. Another item is identifying the top 10 nuisance properties and getting ordinances established to reduce the number of repeat responses. I saw this a few times on one ride-along alone. It was ridiculous. How many times do you have to visit a property before you have to start arresting people because their continued behavior is prohibiting you from doing your job?
Whether you realize it or not, there is a customer service portion. When you call for an officer to respond to a situation you have an expectation of their arrival time. Response times are crucial to the caller and identifying realistic response times will give realistic expectations.
The aggressive campaign to get laterals is essential if we want to decrease our crime at any significant rate. Lateral hires not only prevent rookie mishaps but they also save us money. Here's how- we hire a rookie cop and we invest in the training needed to make them desirable to another agency. We then lose that time and money invested. The city saves that time and money by going after lateral hires because chances are, as a lateral, they will stay for the remaining of their career and invest more in the community they serve.
If you have ever wondered why you drive by and see up to several patrol units stopped for something that might not seem necessary, it is because they stop by to make sure the officer responding does not need assistance. Coming from a family of law enforcement, I want our officers going home to their families every night. If you do not think that step is essential then ask yourself what an officer has done for you, a family member or neighbor that would have put you or them at a heightened risk. Yes, they sign up to do this and know the risks involved. However, safety is essential and we are responsible to each other for that.
Here is where it all went wrong and why we need to invest in this plan. I had a feeling, and it has since been confirmed by multiple people, that the source of this problem stems back about 20 years. We have had city councils for the past 15-20 years that refused to move this town forward despite the obvious shift in demographic and in spite of advice from past city managers. We had more families move into the city, yet no plan was devised to grow this city and make it a definitive place to invest. Gone were the days of a farming and retirement community. Now, from what I have gathered, during that time this city was relatively safe. Meaning, it had a few issues but nothing extreme like we are facing today. The opportunity to invite investment was at its prime, yet nothing was done. Unfortunately, we all now have witnessed what lack of planning and foresight can do to a city. We have now had city councils for the last 6 or so years feed off of that rather large screw up, which is exactly what it was. So I ask: Have we taken the initiative to comb the budget and go after grants that could reduce it? We are spending large amounts of money on very unnecessary items that a simple one-time grant would diminish almost entirely. Have we committed to building the numbers of our police department so that the issues facing our city can be dissolved? Had the advice of city managers been taken and that investment happened, the economic downturn would have played out differently for our city.
You want to make this city a place worth living, playing, working and raising families; our police chief should be the first source of trust and investment. Our police department is going to need to be funded and funded well. We are going to need something solid and consistent. The ideas passed through council meetings simply will not cut it. San Jacinto is exactly what we need to avoid and given the decisions of the past; it is going to take some maneuvering to do so. We are in need of a tax that will give us what we need to get a handle on our biggest issue, crime, because it is haulting all of our growth. Not a tax to fund a dinosaur of an organization with an extremely large union holding a contract over our head, which by the way was the last council majorities wish. We need a tax to increase service so that we can get the crime under control. We simply do not have the officers to currently do this. I have said this before, there will come a time when the threshold is exceeded and we will not have an out. Consider it done at that point and that time is rapidly approaching.
We need a plan. We need the entire council to get behind it and support it so that something can be done and we can all move forward.
Please read the Strategic Plan. There is more involved than what I have covered.
There is funding for a crime suppression unit through a federal grant that needs to be implemented asap or the funds will be taken away. The reason this unit has not been implemented is due to the shortage of officers.
One of the main and most needed components is a drug unit, which is lacking from the ENTIRE valley. Drugs are our main problem! It is the main source of our crime and continuing to spread at a rapid pace. I have heard this not only from residents and officers during ride-alongs, but also our Police Chief. We need more officers so that we can get this established.
Building a relationship between the department and its citizens is also a crucial step in this process. If we do not start building that up, then the issues will continue. One way PD is setting out to accomplish this is through community outreach including a "Speakers Bureau" to speak at community meetings and events, holding quarterly "Crime and Safety Update" meetings, contributing monthly articles in the Valley Chronicle and publish a Police Department Annual Report. Of course, they will be amping up their presence on social media and utilizing sites such as nextdoor.com and crime reports.com.
Increasing patrol time by 40% per officer: They are going about this through technology and utilizing community service officers to respond to non-emergency calls. Another item is identifying the top 10 nuisance properties and getting ordinances established to reduce the number of repeat responses. I saw this a few times on one ride-along alone. It was ridiculous. How many times do you have to visit a property before you have to start arresting people because their continued behavior is prohibiting you from doing your job?
Whether you realize it or not, there is a customer service portion. When you call for an officer to respond to a situation you have an expectation of their arrival time. Response times are crucial to the caller and identifying realistic response times will give realistic expectations.
The aggressive campaign to get laterals is essential if we want to decrease our crime at any significant rate. Lateral hires not only prevent rookie mishaps but they also save us money. Here's how- we hire a rookie cop and we invest in the training needed to make them desirable to another agency. We then lose that time and money invested. The city saves that time and money by going after lateral hires because chances are, as a lateral, they will stay for the remaining of their career and invest more in the community they serve.
If you have ever wondered why you drive by and see up to several patrol units stopped for something that might not seem necessary, it is because they stop by to make sure the officer responding does not need assistance. Coming from a family of law enforcement, I want our officers going home to their families every night. If you do not think that step is essential then ask yourself what an officer has done for you, a family member or neighbor that would have put you or them at a heightened risk. Yes, they sign up to do this and know the risks involved. However, safety is essential and we are responsible to each other for that.
Here is where it all went wrong and why we need to invest in this plan. I had a feeling, and it has since been confirmed by multiple people, that the source of this problem stems back about 20 years. We have had city councils for the past 15-20 years that refused to move this town forward despite the obvious shift in demographic and in spite of advice from past city managers. We had more families move into the city, yet no plan was devised to grow this city and make it a definitive place to invest. Gone were the days of a farming and retirement community. Now, from what I have gathered, during that time this city was relatively safe. Meaning, it had a few issues but nothing extreme like we are facing today. The opportunity to invite investment was at its prime, yet nothing was done. Unfortunately, we all now have witnessed what lack of planning and foresight can do to a city. We have now had city councils for the last 6 or so years feed off of that rather large screw up, which is exactly what it was. So I ask: Have we taken the initiative to comb the budget and go after grants that could reduce it? We are spending large amounts of money on very unnecessary items that a simple one-time grant would diminish almost entirely. Have we committed to building the numbers of our police department so that the issues facing our city can be dissolved? Had the advice of city managers been taken and that investment happened, the economic downturn would have played out differently for our city.
You want to make this city a place worth living, playing, working and raising families; our police chief should be the first source of trust and investment. Our police department is going to need to be funded and funded well. We are going to need something solid and consistent. The ideas passed through council meetings simply will not cut it. San Jacinto is exactly what we need to avoid and given the decisions of the past; it is going to take some maneuvering to do so. We are in need of a tax that will give us what we need to get a handle on our biggest issue, crime, because it is haulting all of our growth. Not a tax to fund a dinosaur of an organization with an extremely large union holding a contract over our head, which by the way was the last council majorities wish. We need a tax to increase service so that we can get the crime under control. We simply do not have the officers to currently do this. I have said this before, there will come a time when the threshold is exceeded and we will not have an out. Consider it done at that point and that time is rapidly approaching.
We need a plan. We need the entire council to get behind it and support it so that something can be done and we can all move forward.
Please read the Strategic Plan. There is more involved than what I have covered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)