Free Lance Editorial: Consolidation report deserves deeper look

Considering a modest, maximum savings of $316,000 annually and the likely benefits of having one cohesive law enforcement agency, Hollister officials should lead the charge in getting the city and county to agree on consolidation of the police and sheriff’s departments.
County and city leaders last week heard a long-awaited report from hired consultant Municipal Resources Group – a $20,000 investment split between the two governments that was well worth the cost – which included more-than-adequate baseline data to make a decision and then finished with a recommendation against consolidation.
Although that consultant’s ultimate recommendation was wrong, the data it used to reach the conclusion brought a new depth and perspective to the debate.
Municipal Resources Group made its recommendation based on what it saw as relatively little savings along with such complexities as geographic differences between the two agencies; differences in compensation between the city and county; and a perception that the sheriff’s office lacks the necessary management structure to take on additional Hollister officers and the city jurisdiction.
We flatly disagree about the savings as a detriment. Municipal Resources Group noted that the number, though modest in relation to multimillion-dollar cuts on the table each of the past three years, amounts to about 5 percent of total law enforcement costs in the county. Merely from an annualized savings standpoint and the inevitability of such consolidation eventually becoming the standard in law enforcement and other areas, we find the dollar amount adds significant value to the balancing act.
The bottom line is that the community as a whole, and the taxpayers of this county and city, have increasingly limited funds to spend on government sectors, in particular the public safety departments that traditionally eat up a large portion of general fund budgets. Any potential cost savings, especially of the six- or seven-figure variety, deserves a hard look by elected leaders.
As for the complexities involved, who ever said that consolidating two law enforcement agencies would entail a smooth ride?
As for the geographic differences in the two jurisdictions, it is a bump in the road at worst. If the sheriff’s office and police department did merge into one agency, the consolidated department would include two primary groups of deputies – those who are mostly familiar with the city and others who are largely familiar with county jurisdiction. What would be so difficult about starting the current Hollister officers on city beats, and likewise for the current sheriff’s deputies with traditional county beats, and then gradually mingling the officers’ duties so they learn both types of coverage areas?
While the sheriff’s office could adjust its management structure as necessary once such a consolidation occurred, the only serious roadblock to the move is the difference in compensation between the two agencies. Hollister officers on average receive about 9 percent higher compensation – because they receive much more lucrative benefits – so it would require contentious talks involving all sides to find agreement.
We believe those talks are not just a good idea. We believe they are necessary in these transformative economic times, and that taxpayers should maintain immense leverage when fiscal collapse is around the corner. Voters asked for bold leadership when they elected council members and supervisors, and that is what they deserve in this case.  
This community – the entire county – does not need two law enforcement agencies with varying chains of command and levels of accountability. And in these times of bold austerity, the unnecessary must go.
As noted by Richard Ferrera, a public speaker at last week’s meeting, the majority of taxpayers in this county and city simply don’t care about the uniform color when an officer shows up at their door.
They care how much service they get in return for their taxes, and law enforcement consolidation would maximize the investment.