Tribune file/Debra Reid - The Sparks police force will not be affected by city budget cuts. There will be reductions in office personnel and front desk hours at the police department.
“Our response times should not be affected,” Keefer said. “We will analyze in the weeks and months to come. If we see that we see that they (response times) have been affected, we will act accordingly.”
All city departments asked their employees to give up about 7.5 percent of their paychecks to plug a $5 million deficit for the next two fiscal years.
The Sparks Police Department offered to give up about 5.4 percent of its annual pay and benefits, according to city spokesman Adam Mayberry. However, Mayberry added, discussions with union groups, including the police department, are still ongoing.
“Since negotiations are still ongoing, we should reserve comment until those discussions are finalized,” Mayberry said.
Mayberry did add that the approximate value of the 7.5 percent individual pay reductions over two years would equal about $1.6 million over that time.
The cuts that were implemented last week eliminated two police assistants from the front desk area and meant a pink slip for a property evidence technician, totaling three layoffs. The police department’s front desk hours have been cut as a result and Keefer says a greater work load will be placed on the department’s one remaining property evidence tech.
However, the police were able to dodge a major budget bullet through a federal grant.
According to Keefer, a grant that would have given them the ability to hire on six new police officers will instead be used to retain six existing police officers. Without the grant, those six would have lost their jobs.
The COPS grant, a segment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, pays the salaries of six officers for three years. According to the grant terms, the city would be liable for the officers’ salaries and benefits in their fourth year of employment, guaranteeing the jobs at a price tag of more than $600,000. In the fifth year, the officers are not guaranteed a job if budget conditions become extreme.
Keefer said the police department is currently reapplying for the grant under different terms, so that the existing officers can keep their jobs.
While officer layoffs are off the table for the police, Keefer said citizens could possibly see some service impacts because of the reduced hours at the front desk.
“Some of those cases taken from the front desk will trickle to patrol officers (who will take the calls),” Keefer said. “However, we do not want to burden their work load to where their response times are affected.”
Keefer clarified that if the police are in the middle of taking a call, it may take them longer to get to the scene of a crime. However, the coming months will tell if response times are really affected by the cuts.
“We will analyze workloads and responses,” Keefer said.
According to a police department presentation given to the City Council, the minimum staffing levels for Sparks police officers have not increased in 14 years. In that time, the Sparks population has grown by 32,427 people. Now, the city is guarded by 1.22 officers per 1,000 people. The national average, according to federal standards, is 1.8 officers per thousand.
“The backbone of any police department is patrol,” Keefer said. “We want to ensure an effective response.”
Here is a bit of tidbit for ya.. the 1.8 police per 1,000 is probably from this website (Int'l Association of Chief of Police)..
http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=LF7xdWl1tPk=&tabid=87
In that article.. please read the qualification..
Ratio Data and Agency Staffing:
Before presenting BJS data, it is first important to clarify IACP’s position on police to population ratios and why they should not be used as a basis for agency staffing decisions. The following is a quote from IACP’s Patrol Staffing and Deployment Study brochure: Ratios, such as officers-per-thousand population, are totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions. Accordingly, they have no place in the IACP methodology. Defining patrol staffing allocation and deployment requirements is a complex endeavor which requires consideration of an extensive series of factors and a sizable body of reliable, current data.
"should not be used", "totally inapprpriate","no place".
Good enough sound bite for this City Council though.
Go here for 2007 City of Sparks data.. near the bottom of page..
http://www.city-data.com/city/Sparks-Nevada.html
(as of March 2007)
Police Protectiion Officers = 113
Other Police (support) = 49
Anonymous.. here is your today's math question.. What is City of Sparks population (2007), give that 1.2 Police Officers serve 1,000 people..then how many people does 113 police officers serve?
Ah heck.. I'll give you the answer.. 94,000 (rounded to thousands) (113 / 1.2 * 1,000) = 94,167 -- a population number which isn't supported by any Google search that I could find for year 2007.
OH.. BTW.. Did I tell you I am running for Sparks City Council, Ward 2?
Don't keep it a secret, What exactly is the City of Sparks population?
Again you cannot tell me. The reporter did not indicate any number. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the federal standards is 1.8 per thousand ratio is from 2010 data, but from statistics some years earlier.
In case you cannot follow my earlier example..
Let just again suppose, City of Sparks population in 2010 is exactly 32,327.. then solving the linear equation 32,327-32,327... then in year 1996, city of population is -0-.
Obviously, -0- is not realist. How you cannot see that, at some point, to solve a three variable equation, you need to know 2 of the variables.
BTW.. I am way beyond simple math. Try me.
For your information, I used variables "A" and "B" for the reporter to fill in the Years.. and "X" and "Y" for the population number.
In case you don't know.. 2010 population numbers hasn't come in yet. There is this thing call the 2010 census. The estimated cost of 2010 census is $11 Billion. Why spend that money, when you got the numbers already?
As for math skills..
Let Y = 2010 census (which is still an unknown)
X = Y minus 32,427.. tell me.. how do you solve for "X" when "Y" is still an unknow.
Agan, What exactly is the City of Sparks 2010 population?
You cannot tell me, can you.
Let say for the sake of argument, City of Sparks had a population of 1,000,000 for Year 2010
If that is the case, Then Year 1996 (YR2010 - 14) is .. (1,000,000 minus 32,427)
You do the math.
Now I see clearly why you chose to use the screen name that you use.
If the story says in 14 years the police force has not increased that means from 1996 to 2010 the population increase by 32,427. Do you need a math tutor too?
From Year "A" to Year "B", City of Sparks population increased from "X" to "Y", or 32,427.
Here is my point, using #'s for the sake of throwing in numbers is a diversion. A more informative statistic would be (# of police officer per 1,000 people per square mile coverage .. or something to that effect).
After all, isn't better part of policing is all about patrolling, area covered, and population density?
Here is another.. Let say the Sparks population is 80,000 and the 2009-2010 city budget is $63,000,000. Doing the math, the city spends $788 per Sparks resident per year regardless of age.
Are you not a bit curious how Sparks compares to other cities of similar size?