My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 65D
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
02/05/2019
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 65D
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2019 11:03:09 AM
Creation date
2/5/2019 9:00:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Item #
65D
Date
2/5/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Comments: Generally, compensation is a good sized component of retaining employees including officers. I am not on <br />the face opposed at all to utilize pay to improve retention, but it has to be evaluated as part of an overall <br />program. However, at the same time due to our pension system, it can also be a determining factor as to when an <br />officer may actually retire thereby higher pay, or an increase in pay, may actually spur on retirement. This is a concern <br />of mine. It is also a concerns me that we may see laterally hired officers come onto the police force only to retire a few <br />years later after they have had their spike in income. An experienced hire who shortly retires does not allow the officer <br />to get to know the community that they are providing services to as compared to someone who will be serving the city <br />for a number of years into the future. <br />Questions: In order to properly assess whether these raises will help in retaining officers, a number of questions need to <br />be asked: <br />1. What has been the rate of retirements for the police force over the past few years? <br />2. What is the composition of our current police force including age, number of years of service, and year of <br />retirement eligibility with a pension? <br />3. Has there been a determination of what the likely retirements look like based on our existing police force? <br />4. Has there been a determination as to the expected number of years that experienced officers will remain <br />beyond what they would have remained without these raises? <br />5. Has there been a determination as to what an officer's retirement pay will be compared to their <br />compensation when working so as to determine likelihood of retaining them on the police force versus retiring? <br />6. How will hiring laterally from other police departments impact retention in the next few years? <br />7. Will these compensation changes improve overall net officers on the police force when comparing officers <br />retiring versus those who are hired? <br />8. How will success be measured in terms of the goal of improving retention of officers? <br />9. If the retention goals are not achieved, are there any corrections that will be made? <br />Improve Neighborhood Safety <br />Comments: We all want a safe city. A safe city is good not only for its residents, visitors, and businesses but also for its <br />police officers. Some would say that safer streets may be one of the highest retention and hiring tools that a city may <br />have even beyond compensation for officers. It concerns me that these raises, although well intentioned, may not result <br />in increased safety in our city unless part of an overallplan. I am concerned that officer response times may not improve <br />unless we fill all the vacancies we have. I am concerned that police pay is just one component of improving safety in our <br />parks, streets, and neighborhoods. <br />Questions: In order to properly assess this area, I feel we need to know: <br />1. Does the city have an overall strategy for utilizing Measure X funds to achieve the public safety <br />improvements desired and how do these raises fit into that strategy? <br />2. If the city does have an overall strategy, where is it and has it been publicized? <br />3. If the city has not put out an overall strategy for utilizing Measure X funds, would it be prudent to <br />incorporate police raises into that overall plan? <br />4. How will these pay increases reduce response times? Is it purely based upon being able to attract more <br />hires? <br />5. How will these pay increases improve safety in our streets, parks and neighborhoods? <br />6. How is improving neighborhood safety measured? What data do we analyze? <br />Measure X Strategy <br />Comments: The voters approved the sales tax increase with passing of Measure X, the "Santa Ana Neighborhood Safety, <br />Homeless Prevention and Essential City Services Enhancement Measure". This sales tax increase appears to have wide <br />latitude as to uses in our city. I am afraid that we are putting the cart before the horse by approving these raises <br />without an overall plan for the use of Measure X funds. Even though 5 out of 7 of the councilmembers either voted no <br />while on council or publicly voiced opposition to the sales tax increase during campaigns, we have a great opportunity to <br />shore up the city financially and put safety in the forefront. I am concerned that if we approve of this large of a increase <br />now, we may not be able to make the best choices in the future. I have to imagine that any future Measure X safety <br />strategy plan would include police officer raises, but we need to do it together and comprehensively. <br />Questions: I would like to know: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.