City and county officials have taken the appropriate step by
inviting a consultant to discuss prospects of a law enforcement
merger and they should move ahead in conducting a financial
analysis to determine how much money could be saved in such a
transformation.
City and county officials have taken the appropriate step by inviting a consultant to discuss prospects of a law enforcement merger and they should move ahead in conducting a financial analysis to determine how much money could be saved in such a transformation.
The intergovernmental committee, including Hollister City Council members and San Benito County supervisors, recently heard a presentation from Mike Oliver with the Municipal Resource Group. City and county leaders appear open to the idea of collaborating to provide police services in light of continued, structural deficits and trends pointing to budget troubles for years to come. On the surface, a merger or contract seems logical for the city police department and county sheriff’s office.
There is inevitable overlap in jurisdiction between the two agencies, which know each other well. Plus, the county has a low population, the large majority of which lives within city limits. If numbers and logistics point to a merger, the most realistic outcome would involve the city contracting for law enforcement with the sheriff’s office.
Both agencies’ costs, meanwhile, take up a large portion of the respective budgets at the county and city. Aside from patrol, the sheriff’s office oversees the county’s jail operations, coroner’s office and communications center – which already involves a partnership among law enforcement agencies – with a total budget of $11.4 million from a total general fund budget of around $38 million. The Hollister Police Department has a budget of $5.6 million but also oversees animal control at a cost of $529,500 – for which the county contracts with the city for services. The city’s total general fund budget is about $15 million.
Hollister, though, faces more severe financial problems, so it is incumbent upon city leaders to take the initiative in considering a merger. Officials have taken the first, necessary step by bringing in the consultant, an efficiency expert of sorts. Now comes the hard part.
That is deciding whether to move full-steam ahead by considering the first of two major components that officials must weigh: whether such a change would save significant tax dollars, then how and if to move forward on the logistics of a monumental transition.
Both the council and county board should partner in pursuing an examination of the costs involved with a potential merger. That consultant also noted how he could provide analysis on other areas as well, such as public works. It couldn’t hurt. The city’s budget outlook – a bankrupted reserve fund in a couple years and multi-million-dollar deficits – is so grim that contracting with the county for law enforcement wouldn’t necessarily dig Hollister completely from its hole. If officials can save elsewhere through consolidation without damaging service levels, then they should pursue those prospects as well.
With a consultant, you have to spend money to save money. The major upside is that it’s an objective view from an expert who has seen it done before, and the price is small in comparison with possible savings over the long haul.
For the cost of the examination, officials might want to consider employing some creativity from the private sector and design a contract that would include a commission-based pay for the consultant based on how much savings a consolidation ultimately spurs.
