SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL POLICE
CALLS FOR SERVICE – TRAFFIC – ARRESTS
CALLS FOR SERVICE:
North Codorus 159
Spring Grove 98
Outside Jurisdictions 4
Total Calls for Service: 359
OUTSIDE JURISDICTION DETAIL:
Northern Regional 1
West Manheim 2
Written Warnings 15
Written Warnings 3
Written Warnings 7
Written Warnings 5
North Codorus 34 (12 Offenders)
Heidelberg 2 (2 Offenders)
Manheim 3 (2 Offenders)
Spring Grove 22 (15 Offenders)
ARREST CHARGES DETAIL:
North Codorus – (1) Involuntary Manslaughter; (1) Drug Delivery Resulting In Death; (5) Aggravated Assault; (5) Robbery; (5) Burglary; (1) Reckless Endangerment; (2) Theft; (1) Receiving Stolen Property; (1) Forgery; (1) Possession w/Intent to Deliver; (2) Possession/Drugs; (2) Possession/Paraphernalia; (1) Theft of Services; (1) Criminal Trespassing; (1) Trespassing; (1) PFA Violation; (2) Public Drunkenness; (1) Prowling & Loitering
Heidelberg – (1) Possession w/Intent to Deliver; (1) DUI
Manheim – (1) Possession/Drugs; (1) Possession/Paraphernalia; (1) Disorderly Conduct
Spring Grove – (2) Theft; (1) Forgery; (1) Receiving Stolen Property; (1) Trespassing; (1) Possession w/Intent to Deliver; (2) Possession/Drugs; (1) DUI; (2) Public Drunkenness; (1) Underage Drinking; (1) PFA Violation; (1) Criminal Mischief; (4) Harassment; (4) Disorderly Conduct
TIME COUNTING (as of 07/12/2019):
Hours Since 1/1/2005:
Allocated Hrs. Hrs To-Date % (+) or (-)
North Codorus 184,175.74 184,123.67 -0.03% (Under 52.07 Hrs)
Heidelberg 69,519.77 69,558.47 +0.06% (Over 38.70 Hrs)
Manheim 63,827.34 63,863.28 +0.06 (Over 35.94 Hrs)
Spring Grove 61,962.67 61,940.09 -0.04% (Under 22.58 Hrs)
Allocated Hrs. Hrs To-Date % (+) or (-)
North Codorus 5,930.33 5,836.35 -1.585% (Under 93.98 Hrs)
Heidelberg 2,246.77 2,206.20 -1.805% (Under 40.56 Hrs)
Manheim 1.997.30 2,104.22 +5.353% (Over 106.92 Hrs)
Spring Grove 2,070.10 2,097.73 +1.335% (Over 27.63 Hrs)
Patrol Investigative Admin Total
North Codorus 3,160.60 2,064.71 611.04 5,520.03
Heidelberg 1,295.40 676.79 234.01 2,206.20
Manheim 1,227.52 674.68 202.02 2,104.22
Spring Grove 977.74 907.57 212.42 2,097.73
SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL POLICE BOARD
July 24, 2019 – 7:00 PM
Meeting called to order by Chairman M. Bollinger at 7:00 pm. The following were in attendance:
- Shearer – North Codorus Twp. (NCT)
- Bollinger – Heidelberg Twp. (HT)
- Muir – Manheim Twp. (MT)
- Hilt, R. Whyland – Spring Grove Borough (SGB)
- Stalcup – Sergeant, Officer In Charge (OIC)
- Nickell – Police Administrator
- Tilley – Solicitor
PUBLIC COMMENT: W. LeFever (NCT Resident) stated that while she is very disappointed in the NCT Supervisors, she is very encouraged by the activity she is seeing of the Police Board. She is especially encouraged by the leadership Sgt. Stalcup and others are providing. She thinks audio recording of the meetings is a great idea, and wonders if it will include a P.A. system for the soft-spoken Board members. She provided a written testimonial from a bicycle rider who had interaction with the Department to Sgt. Stalcup. She asked why Scot Stambaugh’s title is “Secretary” but she never sees him taking notes. W. Tilley explained it is not a “recording” secretary position; the position is to attest signatures and oversee the preservation of the records of the department. Is the Department participating in the Smoke in the Grove event? We are not competing this year, but an officer will be there providing police services. Has anything been planned for National Night Out (NNO)? B. Hilt replied no, SGB used to participate, but in discussion with Chief Bean last year decided not to participate anymore because the block party is held very soon after NNO; it will be August 24th this year. She provided Ms. LeFever with information on the block party.
- Zeigler (NCT Resident) asked if the building appraisal will be available as a public record when completed. Yes.
- Lehman (NCT Resident) asked how much has been spent to-date on the NCT withdrawal. V. Nickell replied that it has not changed since the Board meeting on July 10th.
financial report: V. Nickell reported that a temporary transfer of $40,000 was made from the Reserve Fund to meet the last payroll. This account presently has a balance of $44,759; after the temporary transfers are reimbursed the balance will be $131,759. She will be paying out the sick and vacation time for Officer Matthews this Friday, and needs Board approval to take the funds from the Reserve Fund and the Health Insurance Reimbursement accounts (50/50, as she did with previous officers upon Board approval). The need for this is because the bank account for this liability has been depleted. The total pay-out is $20,049. The present balance of the Health Insurance Reimbursement account is $169,118. Motion by M. Muir, second by R. Whyland to transfer 50% of the sick and vacation pay-out for Officer Matthews from each of the Reserve and Health Insurance Reimbursement Funds. Motion carried unanimously.
A Board member has asked if there are surplus funds available due to the fact that five (5) officers have left the department. After calculating the overtime cost caused by this, there is a surplus of $37,280 to-date. This information is being provided to assist the Board in making future decisions on the funding needs for staffing the Department. R. Whyland asked if employer taxes were included in this calculation; V. Nickell replied no, she only calculated actual wages saved minus the overtime spent. The employer taxes saved is around 7.65% of the net savings. R, Shearer asked if this includes the savings of benefits – no, just wages.
Use of West York Borough Officers – Sgt. Stalcup stated he has been communicating with the Chief of W. York Borough (WYB) to see if it would be possible to contract some of their full-time officers to help fill some of our open shifts in an effort to mitigate officer burn-out due to being short-staffed. The WYB officers would wear their own uniform, vest and duty belt and Velcro our patch over theirs. They would be operating under their own insurances. In preliminary talks with their Chief it was thought they could do this at the overtime rate paid to their officers, which appeared to be a promising, viable solution to our present situation. In recent talks he has found out that they would charge us $85 an hour, not the officer’s overtime rate (around $50). Is this too expensive to consider? B. Hilt stated that since we have saved some money in the officers wages (as just discussed) maybe we could use them short term, until we get the part-time officers on board. How long will that be, do part-time officers have to do the three month field training (FTO) program? Sgt. Stalcup replied that it depends on who applies for the part-time positions. If an applicant has a lot of experience the FTO time would be shorter. She stated that perhaps the Board could use the WYB officers but limit the expense to not surpass the amount saved in wages; she thinks it would be worth it to provide our officers with some relief. M. Bollinger stated that the WYB officers do not receive any overtime shifts, making them more available to work for us. R. Whyland stated that if we are going to consider doing this, we need to get moving, we do not even have an agreement drafted yet. M. Muir stated that he does not think MT has much interest in doing this at this time. One thing they would really like to see is a budget with three (3) municipalities. Next month will be a year since they asked for this. M. Bollinger stated that was incorrect, MT was presented with a budget providing them with 65 hours of service a week, which is what they wanted. B. Hilt stated that budget was with four (4) municipalities, not three (3). M. Bollinger stated there won’t be a budget with three (3) municipalities this year, that won’t happen until January 1st. M. Muir stated that may be the most irresponsible thing he has ever heard, doesn’t he even want to know what they will be paying after next year? M. Bollinger stated he already knows the numbers for next year; they are the same as they have been since 2017. M. Muir stated a lot of assumptions are being made, such as; 1) NCT is going to pay a $1 million penalty; 2) the payment will be made in a timely manner; 3) nothing is going to be tied up in court. MT had asked Chief Bean for a budget when NCT leaves – what will it look like for the three (3) remaining municipalities? Next month it will be a year since they asked for this – Chief Bean promised he would have that budget for them the very next month but he kept kicking the can down the road. M. Bollinger stated there was an 8-officer budget; the direction of the Department changes on a monthly basis and it makes it impossible to come up with a budget with three (3) municipalities. M. Muir stated MT wants to know how many hours of service they will be getting and the cost when NCT is gone. M. Bollinger stated that is a reasonable request now since we know for sure NCT is leaving; we didn’t know for sure until now. M. Muir disagreed and stated that is the problem the MT Board and their residents have with the Police Board; it’s always “we’ll get to it”, this is the reason L. Miller left the Police Board; everything just gets kicked down the road. We are now on month three (3) for the building appraisal, that’s ridiculous. M. Bollinger stated these are pretty tough words coming from a brand new Police Board member who hasn’t even been on the Board for thirty (30) days. M. Muir stated it is important for the member municipalities to have these numbers in order to make decisions in their budgets. M. Bollinger responded he has the numbers. M. Muir asked Sgt. Stalcup if they have a budget with the three (3) municipalities; Sgt. Stalcup responded he isn’t sure. M. Bollinger stated he is pretty sure he saw an 8-officer budget. M. Muir stated the OIC begs to differ, and one of the things MT is concerned about is whether NCT is going to pay a large penalty ($1 million). R. Whyland stated now that we know NCT is leaving, can the Budget Committee put a budget together for 2020? It’s hard to go backwards – let’s move forward. We need a budget moving forward in order to know how we are going to operate starting in 2020. W. Tilley made a recommendation to V. Nickell originally; two (2) budgets should be made – one (1) abiding by the current CBA (2 officers per shift) and one (1) that does not (less expensive). This way you will know if it saves enough money to make it worthwhile to renegotiate a contract with the Police Association. We will need a budget in order to begin negotiations with NCT regarding their payment. M. Muir stated MT starts their budget process in September, and they are concerned that the Police Board is counting on getting a large sum of money from NCT. NCT has made it crystal clear that their opinion of what will be owed is completely different from what our attorney thinks; this is going to be a long, drawn-out procedure. W. Tilley stated he is hoping not, this is why he would like to see the budget. He disagrees with some of the things the NCT attorney said, but some of it is worth looking into. He thinks for the stability of the Department and the benefit of the remaining municipalities he would like to try to have some productive negotiations that would lead to a resolution of what the payment will be, and the timing of the payment (quarterly?), so it can be predictable. The calculation of cost to withdraw should be put off until the end of the year, but moving forward he thinks it is important to develop two (2) budgets as he has explained; have it ready to be presented at the August 14th meeting. M. Bollinger stated he thought a budget had been approved to present to the municipalities last month. B. Hilt stated that budget was for four (4) municipalities; before NCT voted to sign the agreement with Northern Regional. Also, the budget last month was the result of one (1) meeting of the Budget Committee with only two (2) Police Board members in attendance; she thinks the entire Budget Committee needs to sit down and work on this. W. Tilley stated the Police Board needs to put aside hard feelings and move forward in a positive manner. The budget is the fuel for the Department to move forward; the sooner they have that the sooner they will be able to have meaningful discussions with NCT concerning their contribution to next year’s budget. B. Hilt stated she understands what he is saying about a new CBA, but it will take a long time to renegotiate the contract. She thinks we should just look at a budget with everything as it is now (eleven officers). W. Tilley stated that Sgt. Stalcup should develop a budget with the staffing both ways in order to see what the difference is. R. Whyland agreed there should be two (2) budgets – one (1) following the current CBA and one (1) with how the Department would be reconfigured with three (3) municipalities. He believes the reason the Police Board has been dragging its feet is because we didn’t have an answer from NCT until now. M. Bollinger stated we sat down many times to try to figure things out, only to discover we were once again going in a different direction; we weren’t dragging our feet. This is why he is hesitant to put a lot of work into this until January 1st. A lot of work has already been put into all of this, and it has amounted to nothing. W. Tilley stated he understands and respects this; nobody has worked harder than M. Bollinger in trying work through all the issues. His concern is that NCT has taken a position that they shared with us through their solicitor making it important to have information that can be used to respond to them. He doesn’t feel he can make an adequate response until he sees what the numbers will look like. His reason for wanting them now rather than the 1st of the year is because the municipalities start their budget process in September. A budget is needed to provide the Department with stability; so you know where you are going. M. Muir stated that at one time Chief Bean stated that if the Department went down to three (3) municipalities they would probably pay the same or more for less service; the MT Board is not interested in paying more for less service. If the price is going to be out of their range, they need to know by January 1st, in case they need to go somewhere else or do something different. It’s time to stop speculating and put something down on paper. There are options out there that have been made available to MT, and not knowing is not the way MT operates. The more information the better; this will enable them to make decisions that are fiscally responsible, not emotional. R. Whyland stated he thinks the Budget Committee needs to take the amount being paid by the three (3) municipalities now and see what the budget looks like from there. R. Shearer stated that when they work this budget out he wants to use the 2019 actual budget numbers, not the proposed budget. To clarify, this is the 2017 budget. Sgt. Stalcup asked for confirmation that NCT is definitely withdrawing. R. Shearer stated the NCT Board signed the papers with Northern Regional. Sgt. Stalcup asked if they are absolutely, 100% out; R. Shearer replied “yes”. M. Bollinger asked him if he still wanted to be involved in the budget if they are out. B. Hilt stated they have an interest because they want to see what they owe. R. Shearer stated that if the Police Board doesn’t want him involved in any more of their meetings just tell him, and October 1st they will be done; they won’t pay the last quarter, they’ll be gone.
- Crawford (NCT Resident) was recognized by M. Bollinger. She asked why NCT would be involved in a budget for next year when it’s the other three (3) municipalities that will bear the burden. W. Tilley replied they are still a member of the Department and still have representation on the Police Board, so they have the right to participate. Legally they are permitted to be involved, if they choose. T. Crawford commented they could be permitted to attend, but could also be ignored. B. Hilt stated that the budget will still need to be approved by all four (4) municipalities. W. Tilley confirmed this and stated that NCT will still be contributing to the cost of the Department in an amount that will have to be negotiated. We want to proceed in good faith as much as possible and with as little conflict as we can, in an effort to come to an amicable resolution. T. Crawford stated it doesn’t look like good faith has worked out here for the past six (6) months (in her opinion). W. Tilley stated that whether or not she thinks that has worked (he respects and understands why she would say this) but two (2) wrongs never make a right; we should always try to do the right thing. We should try to reach a resolution without conflict, and if we can’t we will have to take the next step. We are prepared to do that, we are not negotiating from a point of weakness, but he doesn’t want to create legal work for himself at the expense of the Police Board when it may not be necessary. R. Whyland stated that if the four (4) municipalities do not approve the 2020 budget we will continue operating under the 2017 budget. W. Tilley stated that if the three (3) remaining municipalities agree on a budget that NCT doesn’t approve of they can wait until January 1st to implement it. The reason it had to be approved unanimously wasn’t because of the by-laws but because of the practical matter that everyone had to contribute. Next year you will have an agreement between the three (3) member municipalities contributing and then it will be a legal obligation on the part of NCT, not a budget obligation. It will be a contract that they will have to pay so the three (3) remaining municipalities will not have to pay more than they are paying now.
- Strausbaugh (SGB Resident) was recognized by M. Bollinger. She asked why it is even a question of what NCT owes. If the 2017 budget is what’s been used this year, then NCT owes one (1) year of that cost without service. It is very clear in the Articles of Agreement. W. Tilley stated that it is not that straight forward. She stated that they are the municipality pulling out and they cannot leave the other three (3) municipalities holding the bag or put them at further financial risk. W. Tilley stated the contract says the remaining municipalities can’t be made to contribute or incur more cost because of their withdrawal. Tonight you have heard that the budget is going to be changed, so their contribution amount is going to be changed as the result of the lower budget because there are fewer officers. Even if they pay the same amount and receive the same service, there will be fewer officers, thus making the budget less, so the left over amount NCT will have to pay might be lower. She replied that NCT did all of this with an attorney back in 2005 and 2006. They did not proceed with this due to the cost; it would have cost them close to $1.2 million to withdraw. The Building Agreement is separate; their share in the building would be paid back over a number of years. She doesn’t see where anything needs to be negotiated. W. Tilley stated he doesn’t think anything needs to be negotiated in the Building Agreement; it’s just a matter of getting the appraisals. We won’t know what NCT will owe until we have the budget for 2020 in place. M. Bollinger asked how does a budget with three (3) municipalities moving forward into next year give the result of what the penalty is for NCT. W. Tilley explained that the way the contract is written, the remaining municipalities cannot incur extra expense as a result of NCT’s withdrawal. So, what we have to do is look at the new budget, divide it by three (3) instead of four (4) and see if it results in extra expense to the remaining municipalities. If it does, then NCT is on the hook for that amount; if it doesn’t, then NCT isn’t on the hook. This is why we need to know what the budget is for next year. M. Bollinger stated that is completely different from what he has advised the Police Board before; he had said the penalty would be one (1) year’s budget payment. W. Tilley stated that’s correct, but now that there are going to be fewer officers the budget is going to be less. M. Bollinger stated we will develop a budget in the interest of the three (3) municipalities seeing what the real cost is going to be moving forward. V. Nickell asked if this budget should be prepared with the remaining municipalities receiving the same number of hours as they did before the officers left. If yes, then we need to budget for more officers than we have now. W. Tilley stated this is one of the issues the Budget Committee will have to work through.
- Bollinger recognized T. Zeigler (NCT Resident). He stated from what the solicitor has advised, the 2020 budget should be what you budget now. M. Muir replied kind of, but their concern is what comes after that in 2021. T. Zeigler stated that if he was in the position of the remaining municipalities, he would want a budget that maintains the same level of service they receive now. Using arbitrary numbers, if MT is paying $300,000 for their hours now and those hours cost $400,000 in 2020, NCT would pay the $100,000 difference. W. Tilley confirmed that is correct. M. Muir stated they are concerned about what happens after 2020. T. Zeigler stated that by keeping the same level of service, it give MT almost a year and a half to figure out what they are going to do. He agrees that sometimes the Police Board drags their feet too long, but now that you finally have your answer from NCT they left you a very small window to work with (until the end of 2019). He doesn’t know why the remaining municipalities would cut their services in 2020 if they are not going to be responsible for the increase in cost. In January they can start looking at the budget to figure out what they are going to do in 2021. W. Tilley stated that T. Zeigler is making a good point – if you reduce hours of service, the cost savings does not benefit the remaining municipalities, it benefits NCT. M. Muir stated what good will it do the officers if they have to lay off the newly hired ones after 2020 – who’s going to want to work here? You may as well work the budget to where you’re going to eventually be and if it benefits NCT, so be it. The reason the timeframe is important is because if their cost were to go from $300,000 in 2020 to $350,000 in 2021, MT will not do that. If MT is going to put in a Letter to Withdraw, the timing is important. The quicker they get the information the better. T. Zeigler replied that he understands, but his point is that the municipalities have committed to a certain level of service, and continuing that commitment gives them an additional year to figure out what they want to do. They could start planning now and use part-time officers to keep the same level of service next year so nobody has to be laid off at the end of 2020.
- Muir stated he had a question that was brought up at their last Township meeting. NCT has to pay a penalty because they are in breach of the Articles of Agreement. The Articles of Agreement also promise a certain level of service that, in Chief Bean’s words, we haven’t received for years (especially this year). What’s their recourse? They are paying the full amount and are not receiving anything near the eighty (80) hours a week they are supposed to be getting. What are the ramifications of this? M. Bollinger asked if there is proof they haven’t been getting their hours. V. Nickell explained, they aren’t now because we do not have enough officers. The time count includes patrol and investigation, not just patrol. Also, the administrative time of officers that are still employed is counted. If an officer is not working a shift because they are on vacation or out for training, their time still needs to be counted because you are still paying them. Things got confused this year because she continued counting the time of the officers that left, but she went back to the beginning of the year and corrected that. In all the previous years they were getting the hours they paid for. M. Muir stated that is not the comment Chief Bean made to L. Miller; V. Nickell replied that he must have misspoke. R. Shearer stated that there were many years the Department was not at full staff; in 2016 we were down four (4) officers. V. Nickell replied that was temporary, this year (for the first time) it is permanent. R. Shearer stated you can’t count the admin time if they aren’t being paid. V. Nickell replied that those officers were still being paid, they were out on disability, and they were still employed by the Department. M. Bollinger stated that technically, if all the remaining municipalities have suffered a loss of service, it should be factored into the NCT penalty. M. Muir agreed, if that was from the time they put in their Letter to Withdraw; but the Chief’s comment was they hadn’t been getting their hours for years. So, back to his question, what happens if they are not receiving the hours they are paying for? R. Whyland stated that falls back on the Police Board; the eight (8) of them are supposed to be running this Police Department. If they don’t know what’s going on, then whose problem is it? R. Shearer stated the Police Board was comfortable with the time count because they received the monthly report showing the hours they were supposed to be getting. M. Bollinger stated that he thought the time counting issue had been addressed by correcting 2019, M. Muir stated yes, for 2019.
- Bollinger confirmed that Sgt. Stalcup and V. Nickell would formulate a budget with eight (8) officers. He agreed with M. Muir, if the numbers are too high at the end of 2020 they will have to make some difficult decisions. V. Nickell asked if they want to keep the same hours of service that they have now for the 2020 budget. Yes, and one with a restructured 8-officer Department. A Budget Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, July 31 at 6:00 pm, contingent upon M. Muir checking his schedule to confirm his availability.
Part-Time Officers Update – Sgt. Stalcup stated he e-mailed flyers to the 9-1-1 centers in York and Adams Counties last week and they distributed them to all the police departments. A potential candidate came in yesterday to inquire about our tattoo policy and he ended up talking with him for an hour and a half. On paper, there’s no reason not to hire him. He is hoping to get Board approval to do so some time tonight, contingent upon him passing a background check. Another experienced officer has expressed interest. To have that much interest in one week looks promising to him. M. Bollinger stated he likes the idea of using WYB, but not the price; he is encouraged by this feedback. He thinks the part-time officers will happen more quickly than trying to use WYB; Sgt. Stalcup agreed. M. Muir asked how long would it be until they could begin working and providing the officers relief? Sgt. Stalcup replied it depends on the candidate and how much experience they have. The candidate he spoke with has a few months experience with another department. In speaking with him he appears to be assertive enough, and he is looking to gain some more experience. He estimates this officer would be able to work on his own in about a month. The consensus of the Board was to put WYB on hold until we see what happens with the potential part-time officers. Does this officer live locally? York County (Wrightsville). Motion by R. Whyland, second by B. Hilt, to authorize Sgt. Stalcup to hire the candidate that lives in Wrightsville as a part-time officer contingent upon passing a background check. Motion carried unanimously.
Southern Regional Police (SRP) Update – B. Hilt attended SRP’s Board meeting and reported L. O’Brien was unable to attend this meeting and discuss a potential merger due to a family emergency. D. Schmidt spoke with L. O’Brien after NCT voted to sign a contract with NRPD; and he stated that SRP is still interested in talking about a merger. She was glad to have an opportunity to attend one of their meetings and observe how they operate; it confirmed her interest in pursuing further talks with them.
Building Appraisal – The company the Police Board chose at the last meeting changed their time-line from two (2) weeks to six (6) to eight (8) weeks, so they need to choose a different company. V. Nickell referred to an e-mail from D. Schmidt, with a proposal from Jerry with Commercial Industrial Appraisal Services. They propose completion in two (2) weeks (if the engagement letter is returned quickly) at a price of $2,200. Motion by B. Hilt, second by M. Muir to approve the engagement letter from Commercial Industrial Appraisal Services as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Invitation to Chief Bentzel – It is customary for guest speakers to be approved by the Police Board. M. Bollinger stated he does not have a problem with Chief Bentzel coming next month, what does the rest of the Board think? B. Hilt stated she doesn’t see the point; NCT has already signed with them and she and D. Schmidt already spent two and a half hours with him; L. Miller talked with him as well. M. Muir stated he spoke with L. Miller briefly, but not in detail. The two of them need to be careful about what they talk about because they form a quorum for the MT Board. All he said was that Chief Bentzel had some new information to present. M. Bollinger stated he had spoken to him a couple of weeks ago by phone to set up the meeting with B. Hilt and D. Schmidt and he thinks it’s worthwhile to see what he has to say. M. Muir stated it is his understanding that he will answer questions from those in the audience. M. Bollinger instructed V. Nickell to put Chief Bentzel on the agenda for the August 14th meeting.
- Bollinger asked Sgt. Stalcup if he needs to go into Executive Session for anything. He replied he wasn’t sure, if the Board wants to hear more about the part-time candidate, then yes, it should be presented in Executive Session. After discussion the consensus of the Board was they did not require any further details on the candidate. Sgt. Stalcup informed the Board that there will be some upfront costs in hiring him as he will need some uniforms and probably a ballistic vest. The Board had no objection. W. Tilley added that the CBA dictates that uniforms and equipment have to be provided, so a motion from the Board isn’t needed.
- Whyland stated that the maintenance of the front of the building needs to be addressed. A landscaping/mowing company will not take care of power washing the front and getting the windows clean. V. Nickell stated that this used to be done by our employees, but there hasn’t been any time or personnel available to do it this year. M. Bollinger recognized W. LeFever (NCT Resident). She suggested maybe some people within the community would volunteer to do it; maybe post something on our FaceBook page. She stated she could help pull weeds. R. Shearer stated that York County Prison has a program for prisoners to do things like this as part of their rehabilitation; NCT has utilized this program to do maintenance at their building and community park. M. Bollinger recognized P. Smith, a volunteer with the Department. He stated he also volunteers with the Veterans Wellness Corp and the York County Court system. Those in the Court system have to complete a certain number of community service hours, he can put a request in to see if anybody is available to help. R. Whyland asked how much supervision is required to have them work here. He replied none; they are not prisoners, they are out on probation and are required to do community service as part of their probation. The consensus of the Board was to go ahead and have these arrangements made.
Meeting adjourned at 8:14 pm.
SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL POLICE BOARD
July 10, 2019 – 7:00 PM
Meeting called to order by Secretary S. Stambaugh at 7:00 pm. The following were in attendance:
- Shearer, R. Lint – North Codorus Twp. (NCT)
- Schmidt – Heidelberg Twp. (HT)
- Stambaugh (Secretary), M. Muir – Manheim Twp. (MT)
- Hilt, R. Whyland – Spring Grove Borough (SGB)
- Stalcup – Sergeant, Officer In Charge (OIC)
- Nickell – Police Administrator
- Tilley – Solicitor
PUBLIC COMMENT: W. LeFever (NCT Resident) requested everyone on the Board speak up in order for all those in the audience to hear. She then asked who initiated the survey by York College – Dr. Witherup initiated it. She is looking forward to hearing the results of the meeting with Southern Regional Police, and is hoping and praying NCT will delay a decision until they find out details of these types of opportunities.
- Rebert (NCT Resident) asked if our department is participating in the Aggressive Driving detail he saw in the newspaper recently. Sgt. Stalcup replied no, we cannot due to reduced staffing. J. Rebert stated that this puts residents in harm’s way; the program would increase the safety of our roadways.
New Vice-Chairman: Due to the resignation of L. Miller last month, the Board needs to elect a new Vice-Chairman. Motion by B. Hilt, second by M. Muir to nominate R. Whyland as Vice-Chairman, beginning in August, 2019. No other nominations, motion carried unanimously.
BLDG & GROUNDS COMMITTEE: V. Nickell reported that last month the Board voted to have the Building & Grounds Committee get bids to do the lawn mowing/landscaping. When she researched who was on the committee, it was discovered only one (1) board member was assigned – R. Lint. She requested the Board assign another to the committee to assist R. Lint. S. Stambaugh volunteered to be on the Building & Grounds Committee, the Board accepted his offer.
MINUTES: Review of the minutes of June 12, 2019. Motion by R. Whyland to approve the minutes as presented. M. Muir asked why a budget for fourteen (14) officers was submitted to the Budget Committee when the minutes only reflect eleven (11) officers. B. Hilt explained that they started with fourteen (14) with the intention to reduce from there. Only two (2) Board members were able to attend the budget meeting. V. Nickell stated another budget meeting needs to be scheduled. Motion was seconded by M. Muir, motion carried unanimously.
TREASURER’S REPORT: (Attachment A) Treasurer’s Report was presented. V. Nickell informed the Board that a temporary transfer of $47,000 was made from the Reserve Fund in order to fund the last payroll. R. Shearer stated that he noticed there is a new line item for the cost for NCT to withdraw, and it grew considerably. Are these costs that have already been paid? V. Nickell replied that she did this in response to D. Schmidt’s request at the last Board meeting for a running total of the cost to withdraw. She did not set up anything in QuickBooks, she just made a spreadsheet to keep a running total. The costs include the sick and vacation time pay-outs to the officers that left employment, legal fees and overtime caused by the withdrawal. Everything listed is what has been paid up to June 30th. R. Shearer asked why these other costs were added; the only thing that was ever discussed was attorney fees. D. Schmidt requested all the costs, the pay-outs to the officers was included because they left due to the instability of the department. M. Muir stated he had this highlighted also; the liability for the sick and vacation pay-outs are there whether NCT withdraws or not. D. Schmidt stated he wanted to see what all the fees were to help him reconcile it in his mind. This is the first time he has ever been through anything like this, and just came onto the Board at the beginning of this year. He wanted to see what the cost was, even though the liability is built in, he wanted to see exactly what the costs were. R. Shearer asked if the $80,000 was what’s due to the officers or paid out. V. Nickell replied this has been paid out to the officers that left. R. Shearer stated this cost should not be attributed to the NCT withdrawal costs, the Articles of Agreement do not include it; furthermore, if this is money paid out, NCT has already paid 48% of it. V. Nickell stated she did this as a spreadsheet so the Board could make changes as they see appropriate. S. Stambaugh stated he could see someone getting the wrong impression from the information; R. Shearer stated it is false figures again. M. Muir pointed out that “OT” (overtime) is also listed; it’s not like overtime is new to this department. He stated that in reading the letters from the two (2) attorneys, he has never seen two sides so opposite. L. Riebling (MT Manager) stated there was a fund established for the sick and vacation pay outs; any funds left over at the end of the year are rolled into it. Did the $80,000 come from that fund? V. Nickell replied that that fund has been used up, there was around $55,000 in it; the balance was taken from the Reserve Fund and Health Insurance Fund. This was approved by the Police Board at a prior meeting. L. Riebling stated that the funds from the Sick & Vacation Liability and Reserve Fund were apportioned according to the funding formula, but not the funding from the Health Insurance Reimbursement. W. Tilley stated that a professional accountant should be determining what costs are attributable to the NCT withdrawal. The sick and vacation pay-outs were paid out at 100% of their value, but only 30% was funded in that bank account. After further discussion the consensus of the Board was to-date the only costs that should be listed are the attorney fees, and a separate, “FYI” spreadsheet can list the other costs. V. Nickell stated she would make the corrections. Motion by R. Whyland, second by B. Hilt to approve the Treasurer’s report as amended. Motion carried with one (1) Nay, R. Shearer.
Sgt. Stalcup stated there were 316 calls for service in June with no calls outside our jurisdiction. There were 76 traffic stops. A total of 36 criminal charges were filed on 20 offenders. The total calls for service to the end of June is 2,011 with 231 arrest charges filed to-date. The Board did not have any questions.
Department Update/News Report (Attachment B): The News Report was presented by Sgt, Stalcup as attached. Sgt. Stalcup stated that this document is still a work in progress. He intends to update the Board on Use of Force, Vehicle Pursuits, Training, Investigations and any items requested in the previous month. There will be an update regardless of the information, i.e., nothing to report.
Updates to Prior Inquiries – R. Shearer had asked if West York Borough used part-time officers, as he believed they had used them significantly in the past. Sgt. Stalcup learned from their Chief that they have two (2) part-time officers; one is used for patrol and one is a retired PSP arson investigator who is used for specialized investigations.
Smoke In the Grove – SGB has requested an officer on July 27 from 5 pm – 9 pm and the 28th from 11 am – 5 pm for this year’s Smoke In the Grove event. We will be providing an officer, and they will be paying this separately.
Jefferson Carnival – We have provided service every year in the past, but will be unable to do so this year due to staffing constraints.
Roving DUI Patrol – On June 28th two (2) officers participated in a Roving DUI Patrol detail hosted by Penn Township. During this four (4) hour detail the officers patrol their own jurisdiction, focusing exclusively on traffic enforcement and detecting impaired drivers. Wages are reimbursed by the PA DUI Association, a non-profit organization that works with PennDot through a law enforcement grant that funds training and enforcement of DUI laws. R. Shearer stated that he thought Sgt. Stalcup just told J. Rebert we did not participate in this. Sgt. Stalcup replied that Mr. Rebert was referring to a different program (Aggressive Driving).
Call Log – We are several months behind in posting this on the website due to an effort to improve the process. He hopes to have it caught up by the next Board meeting.
Minutes – An extraordinary amount of time is spent on composing the meeting minutes. Would it be possible to strip the written minutes down to the bare legal requirements and video tape the meetings? The video could be posted on a YouTube channel and a link could be posted on our website, enabling anyone that wants detailed information to see the actual meeting. We already have the recording equipment wired to our interview room; we just need to run the wire to the meeting room.
Officer Matthews – Officer Matthews has resigned, his last day worked was July7th. He leaves with 17 years of service and will be working for the PA Attorney General’s office as an insurance fraud investigator.
- Update on the home invasion that occurred in NCT that occurred on April 15, 2019. On 7/3/19 two (2) officers interviewed a suspect for 3.5 hours. On 7/8/19 two (2) officers spent nine (9) hours locating, transporting and interviewing several suspects. An additional ten (10) hours of investigation were spent on 7/9/19, resulting in the arrest of five (5) suspects. A total of thirty-seven (37) felony and five (5) misdemeanor charges were filed. There was a use of force incident involving Sgt. Stalcup due to a non-compliant subject. Nobody was injured. They have a strong case and the charges were well done. The Board congratulated Sgt. Stalcup in closing this case.
Vehicle Pursuits: None
Vehicle Damage: Vehicle 129 struck a deer on 6/15/19 resulting in damage to the passenger side front bumper, fender, headlight housing, grille, radiator and climate system. Estimate to repair is $4,636.25; we have a deductible of $250. The officer driving the vehicle was not injured.
- 6/14/19 – Theft Suspects on N. Main St., SGB– Two (2) juveniles stole a motorcycle key from a local business. They were promptly identified and the incident was resolved.
- 7/1/19 – Stolen Vehicle-SGB – recovered on 7/9 in York City.
- 7/1/19 – Items stolen from vehicles in SGB.
- 7/9/19 – Arrest made in MT residence damaged by bullets.
Police Board Questions/Comments:
- Stalcup stated the home invasion investigation was very laborious. Twenty (20) search warrants filed; more than twelve (12) hours of recorded interviews which resulted in suspects with a reputation of not talking to police confessing. He assisted in interviewing the suspects, entailing working two (2) seventeen (17) hour days in a row. R. Shearer asked if the suspects were connected to any other home invasions. Sgt. Stalcup replied they were connected to a lot of things over the past several years. There have been three (3) – five (5) home invasions in York County since the one in NCT, he is not aware of any of them being connected to one (1) group.
- Schmidt stated he likes the format of Sgt. Stalcup’s report; it is very easy to read. Regarding the recording of the minutes – it is typical for police departments to video tape them and post to a YouTube channel? Sgt. Stalcup replied he is not sure, if not, let’s be the first. YouTube has a limit of how much space you can use on their server; he suggested keeping the most recent six (6) months on YouTube and downloading the previous months to disc to preserve them. B. Hilt stated it would be very advantageous for Board members who miss meetings; they will be able to see everything they missed. It will also save time with Right-To-Know requests for the audio of the meetings.
- Tilley advised the legal minimum to be recorded in the written minutes would be “official actions” of the Board. Official actions have four (4) components as follows: 1) Recommendations made by the Board pursuing a statute or an ordinance; 2) Establishment of a policy; 3) Decisions on any Department business; 4) Any votes taken on any motion or resolution. R. Whyland asked if the conversation leading up to a motion needs to be recorded – no, just the motion itself.
There was a discussion regarding what equipment will be needed and the cost of said equipment. The consensus of the Board was to record audio only, not video, as social media can be problematic with hackers taking clips from videos and posting them out of context. The equipment agreed upon was three (3) flat, wireless microphones and items needed to record onto an existing hard drive. Motion by M. Muir, second by R. Whyland approving the purchase of three (3) wireless microphones and needed wiring not to exceed $500. Motion passed unanimously.
- Whyland asked if the productivity program was still being used (he hopes not). Sgt. Stalcup replied that this had been suspended before Chief Bean resigned his position. R. Whyland stated that he could not find anything in minutes from the past where the Board had approved the productivity program. V. Nickell and L. Riebling confirmed it had been approved by the Police Board, many years ago.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – Motion by R. Whyland, second by B. Hilt to approve the MOU as presented. There was a lengthy discussion, with the following points being made:
- Muir stated the Police Board needs to be working toward a resolution. L. Miller had a conversation with the Chief of Northern Regional Police (NRPD), and he stated it would not be a big deal to provide service to all four (4) municipalities. MT finds NRPD very attractive. This department stands to lose $1,000,000 when NCT leaves. MT is paying for more time than they need, and have not been getting their assigned time anyway. Chief Bean told him that none of the municipalities had been getting their assigned time for years. If NRPD would find a home for our officers on their force, he thinks it would be phenomenal to have them provide police service.
- Hilt stated that when she and D. Schmidt met with NRPD they were told that NRPD could provide service to the other municipalities in steps, i.e., one (1) municipality every three (3) months. According to our Articles of Agreement that won’t work. They also said that any officers that would be interested in joining their department would have to go through their hiring process; they would not automatically be given a job. When they spoke with Larry O’Brien with Southern Regional they were told the officers would keep their jobs, it would be a merger. She is more inclined to go with Southern but more information is needed from both departments. Even though the Police Board did not send her and D. Schmidt to NRPD, she personally wanted to go and hear what they had to say first-hand. M. Muir asked if there are concerns with the issues Southern (SRPD) has had over the past few years. B. Hilt replied that is one of the things they need to discuss further.
- Schmidt stated that NRPD is a very solid police department and they were impressed with what Chief Bentzel presented. It was very clear that Southwestern (SWRPD) would be absorbed and would not exist anymore if NRPD provides service to the remaining three (3) municipalities. The general goal for him and B. Hilt going into these talks was to maintain the integrity of SWRPD, and SRPD is on the same wavelength in that regard. In the meeting with SRPD they shared information as to who they are and how we can merge/co-exist. They left that meeting with the sense that SRPD is looking for a partnership. They agreed to go back to their Police Board for further discussion, and he and B. Hilt agreed to do the same. If, after speaking with their respective Police Boards, they were still interested, they would set up another meeting with them. NRPD was very clear in what they could do, so there’s no reason for another meeting with them. Chief Bentzel did state he would sit down with any of our Police Board members that want to talk with him. B. Hilt stated that one question she failed to ask NRPD was who pays the overhead (admin staff, insurance, building maintenance, etc.) of the department if they are only charging for time an officer spends in a municipality.
- Whyland expressed concern over the hourly rate ($125) and time counting. Are the hours for calls for service or patrol? Is the hourly rate $166.35; that would make sense, not $125. M. Muir stated it was originally set up as hours of service. Chief Bean always stressed the more patrol time the better; a ratio of 50/50 was recommended. The original funding formula was based on PPU’s. Over the years it evolved from paying for hours of service to making the budget work. No matter how many hours are actually needed, each municipality pays a percentage of the available hours to make the budget work. S. Stambaugh stated they need to know how many hours of patrol they are presently receiving to ascertain what is needed to keep the area safe. M. Muir stated one of the things L. Miller was impressed with when he met with Chief Bentzel was that when their officers leave the building and go to your region they spend the rest of their shift there, period. R. Whyland asked if $125 an hour includes admin expenses, he doesn’t think it does; with admin expenses it’s $166.35. The $125 an hour is what Chief Bean always said our cost was; M. Muir stated no, our rate is $85 and hour. V. Nickell stated Chief always stated a cost of $113 (this was per resident, not hour). R. Whyland asked what happens if you need a detective for 250 hours (with NRPD)? B. Hilt stated they do the same we do; they try to balance the hours out. One of their municipalities has a carnival in the fall, and they start saving patrol hours up each month at the beginning of the year in order to cover it.
- Muir asked B. Hilt why she doesn’t think NRPD will work – because of the Articles of Agreement. She stated yes, and she personally is not a fan of using NRPD. She would rather see us merge with SRPD and copy some of what NRPD does; SRPD is already doing this. M. Muir stated if we merged with Southern we would have to pay to maintain two (2) buildings. B. Hilt replied that they pay $30,000 a year in rent for their building. This is all-inclusive (insurance, utilities). D. Schmidt stated that Chief Bentzel told them that NRPD does this also; they rent office space in some of their municipalities. He has nothing against NRPD, but he would rather see us maintain SWRPD by merging with SRPD rather than dissolving the department and going with NRPD. He doesn’t want to take the easy way out; he wants to take the right way out; which is still being defined. He and B. Hilt need to have a couple more meetings with SRPD so they can provide the Police Board with the information they need to make a decision.
- Riebling asked why NRPD has to take the municipalities over in steps; is it due to their structure? B. Hilt stated it was her understanding that they would need extra time to hire and train officers to cover the municipalities. Would they be willing to absorb our officers into their department? No, they stated that they wouldn’t be able to do that at this time. D. Schmidt stated that he got the feeling Chief Bentzel was saying things to appease them, as he probably knew that they want to keep our officers.
- Muir stated he cannot imagine two (2) police boards being able to agree on anything; it’s very difficult for this Board to do so. SRPD has been a big mess for years. D. Schmidt replied that he and B. Hilt are going to find out more about SRPD, there is a sense of urgency but we need to take careful steps and make steady progress. Additional comments regarding SRPD were as follows:
- Shearer – maintaining two (2) buildings will be expensive.
- Schmidt – we are in the early stages of discussing a merger with SRPD; but it is what he and B. Hilt are leaning toward at this time. One thing that needs to be discussed is whether their Chief is on-board with merging. A decision cannot be made after one (1) meeting.
- Drive time to SRPD is thirty (30) to forty (40) minutes; B. Hilt stated it took her twenty-six (26) minutes from Hanover.
Discussion turned back to part-time officers, with the following points being made:
- Can three (3) municipalities be served by eight (8) officers?
- CBA will need to be changed to allow one (1) officer working at certain times of the day.
- CBA will need to be changed to only allow one (1) officer to take a vacation or personal day at a time.
- Using part-time officers will help reduce overtime and costs.
- Stalcup endorses the use of part-time officers only if they are a regimented part of the schedule. Part-time officers need to know the community, our policies, and our culture and this can only be achieved by them having a regular schedule with us.
Previous motion to approve the MOU was voted upon; motion carried unanimously.
- Stambaugh recognized L. Lehman (NCT resident) who asked if it is too early to talk about how this Board would interact with another Police Board. With NRPD you have to buy-in and then they allow one (1) voting member per municipality. B. Hilt replied that it is too early in the discussions to figure that out. He stated that is one of the issues with NCT going with NRPD; they have no voice on their Police Board. M. Muir stated that could change if the remaining three (3) municipalities go with NRPD. R. Shearer stated that NCT could “buy-in” to NRPD for $23,000. If you do this, you are locked into the department forever. The reason they decided to contract services instead of buying in is because there isn’t a penalty if you decide to stop using them. You have to wait three (3) years before you can give notice; and then you have to give them two (2) years notice.
- Schmidt stated that after the preliminary meeting with SRPD they feel we could merge into a bigger, better, stronger department. The devil is in the details, a lot needs to be done before this can happen.
Building Appraisal: D. Schmidt reported that he has three (3) quotes, as follows:
- Strausbaugh Appraisal Services – $2,100 with completion in 4-5 weeks
- Principal Real Estate Consultants- $2,750 with completion in 3 weeks
- Remace Ltd. – $2,200 with completion in 3-4 weeks
After discussing, the Board’s consensus was that timeliness is the most important component of this decision. D. Schmidt stated he would contact Principal Real Estate Consultants (the most timely quote) and see if they can give us a better price. Motion by M. Muir, second by B. Hilt to approve engaging Principal Real Estate Consultants to perform the building appraisal. Motion carried unanimously.
Budget Committee Update: B. Hilt reported that a second meeting of the Budget Committee is needed. She was the only elected board member that was able to attend the first meeting; D. Schmidt attended in M. Bollinger’s place. She thinks it should be tabled until the committee can meet again. R. Shearer stated he wants to discuss it now. He did not attend the meeting because he did not receive confirmation that they were having it and he did not receive the proposal until after the meeting occurred. He thought we would be talking about an 11-officer and 8-officer department, but this proposal was for a 14-officer department. B. Hilt responded that they discussed a 14-officer and an 11-officer budget with the intention to start with fourteen (14) and then peel it back to eleven (11). M. Muir asked if NCT would stay if the 11-officer budget was close to the proposal from NRPD. R. Shearer asked if that could be done before Tuesday (the next NCT Board meeting). W. LeFever (NCT resident) suggested that NCT could request a delay in the start date with NRPD to give them time to look at all the options. M. Muir asked if they could delay the start date to February 1, giving them the chance to look at the numbers. R. Shearer replied that the budget discussed in March was still $100,000 more than the quote from NRPD. He stated that he sent all the Police Board members the presentation from Chief Bentzel so they could review it. With the added perks NRPD offers he doesn’t see how anybody could decide not to go with them for the cost. B. Hilt stated she couldn’t open the attachment he sent in the e-mail. He stated he had hoped the elected Police Board members would share it with each of their municipal boards. He had told the NCT residents he was going to do this in an effort to explore a merger with NRPD. M. Muir stated that he heard the NCT residents were receptive to NRPD. R. Shearer responded they were receptive to Chief Bentzel, but they want to keep SWRPD, he is not sure why. He hears our cost is $85 an hour and we want to sell hours for $75 an hour, and now he is hearing our cost is $166 an hour – he doesn’t see the value of SWRPD. R. Whyland stated the $166 an hour he was talking about had nothing to do with the 11-officer budget.
- Schmidt stated he attended the NCT meeting that Chief Bentzel was at. The residents that attended were extremely vocal in their opinions. Chief Bentzel was well received, but he resoundingly heard the residents stating they wanted to keep SWRPD; they wanted NCT to hold off on making a final decision. R. Shearer stated that they submitted the Letter of Intent to Withdraw in October, and they have held off until now to make a final decision. B. Hilt and R. Whyland did an excellent job in coming up with a 2020 budget in March, but he doesn’t see how the scheduling would work with it. He doesn’t see it as a viable possibility. The withdrawal letter was purposely filed in October in order to give the Police Board an extra three (3) months to respond. He still doesn’t understand the time counting, it still shows them receiving 253 hours a week. V. Nickell stated the new time count is in the June Crime Stats. She went back to the beginning of the year and subtracted the admin time count of officers who left employment. V. Nickell presented a detailed explanation of the new time count; R. Shearer did not completely understand the numbers. M. Muir asked additional questions; he did not understand the numbers presented because he stated he did not get the June Crime Stats with the new calculations. R. Shearer stated he would take another look at what he had.
- Muir stated that if NCT is leaving, an 11-officer budget does not make sense, we should be looking at the 8-officer budget. Three (3) townships cannot afford an 11-officer budget so there is no sense in wasting time on it. Secondly, he understands the sentiment and wanting to care about the officers that are currently employed. But at the same time the municipal boards are stewards of their taxpayers’ money, and their residents don’t care. This has been discussed in great detail at the MT meetings, and their residents just want good police service for the best value, they don’t care where it comes from. Why would MT agree to pay more for the same service? Hopefully all the officers can go with NRPD.
- Lehman (NCT resident) was recognized by S. Stambaugh. He stated that if they are good stewards of the taxpayers’ money, why would NCT decide to withdraw from SWRPD when they have no idea what it is going to cost them? M. Muir disagreed, stating he has a letter from their attorney stating exactly what they will be paying; their opinion differs from what the Police Board’s attorney has said it will cost. L. Lehman stated in his opinion the courts will decide. M. Muir agreed, saying the decision will be made at the cost of the taxpayers. L. Lehman asked once again, then why is NCT doing this? M. Muir stated for the same reason MT pays for more hours than they need; they have no choice, they can’t cut them. S. Stambaugh stated that sometimes drastic measures are needed in order to have change. J. Rebert (NCT resident) was extremely upset to hear about this letter – why hasn’t this information been shared with the residents? Does this letter state what it is going to cost NCT to withdraw? W. Tilley stated the letter does not give accounting numbers, it speaks in legal terms. J. Rebert continued to state his displeasure with the Police Board for not sharing this information tonight. R. Shearer responded that J. Rebert was upset last month because the NCT attorney hadn’t responded to the Police Board, and now he is upset because he did? As a former supervisor he should know what can and cannot be shared with the public. J. Rebert stated the numbers should be shared with the NCT residents; R. Shearer stated you can’t when you are negotiating back and forth. D. Schmidt stated they just received this letter and haven’t had time to digest it yet. W. Tilley stated it needs to be reviewed in Executive Session. J. Rebert asked when the public gets to know what the MOU says and the 2020 budget proposal. B. Hilt stated that the MOU is in order to circumvent the CBA and allow the hiring of part-time officers so the department can continue to function. W. Tilley stated that now that the Board has approved it, it is a public record. In answering the 2020 budget proposal, B. Hilt stated the Budget Committee needs to meet again; the proposal isn’t ready to be presented to the Police Board yet. J. Rebert stated it is too late; NCT already advertised in the newspaper that they will be passing an Ordinance to authorize them to sign an agreement with NRPD at their next board meeting (Tuesday July16th). There was discussion about when the Budget Committee can meet again; M. Muir was not available to meet prior to the next NCT meeting. Sgt. Stalcup suggested they meet tonight. After discussion it was decided to recess the meeting into Executive Session after all the business on the agenda had been taken care of in order to review the budget and reconvene to vote on it.
Landscaping Needs: V. Nickell stated that one (1) business dropped their information off so the Building and Grounds Committee could contact them; she passed the information to S. Stambaugh. R. Whyland asked if there is still a Youth Aid Panel – we need to have someone come in and clean up the front of the building, it is in bad shape. V. Nickell stated that the Department usually does a “Spring Cleaning” day to address the weeding and power washing of the front; we have not been able to do it due to our current staffing level. S. Stambaugh asked if he needs to get three (3) bids for the lawn service; W. Tilley stated no, only if it is going to cost over $11,000. Finding a new landscaping/mowing company is not an emergency, we still have our current provider. Another item that needs to be addressed is the sink hole in the back of the building. V. Nickell has received an estimate and stated she would e-mail it to the Building & Grounds Committee.
Need for Additional Meetings – D. Schmidt stated that this has come up because with everything that is going on and so much to get done, the Police Board needs to meet more than once a month. It takes too long to accomplish anything, and in order to get things done in a more timely manner he thinks the Police Board needs to meet more often (weekly?). An ad can be placed announcing the extra meetings, and if the meeting isn’t needed it can be cancelled. The attorney can attend as needed. W. Tilley stated he is usually available the 4th Wednesday, two (2) days’ notice regarding whether he is needed would be fine. He can also participate via telephone. Motion by S, Stambaugh, second by D. Schmidt authorizing the Police Board to meet the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month from July until the end of the year with W. Tilley attending as needed with 48-hours’ notice. Motion carried with one (1) Nay – R. Whyland.
Meeting recessed into Executive Session at 9:05 pm to discuss personnel issues and will reconvene to discuss the 2020 Budget Proposal.
The Board reconvened into Public Session at 10:29 pm.
The 2020 Budget Proposal was presented to the Board. Two (2) versions were presented; one (1) with Glatfelter Health Insurance and the other with Benecon. The Benecon cost shows the actual cost with no reduction from the Health Insurance Reimbursement Account. The health insurance cost for both budget proposals was calculated by adding 10% to the 2019 cost/quote with our current officers plus two (2) new ones to get to eleven (11) officers. R. Whyland stated there will be a large penalty if we switch to Glatfelter. V. Nickell explained that the Board would have to pay the “run-out” costs; which would be the actual medical expenses of the employees for the last two (2) months of the year. It is impossible to predict what that cost could be. The cost to the municipalities would be less than they are paying now with either budget proposal.
- Shearer asked how many patrol vehicles are in this budget – two. We currently have a total of eleven (11) vehicles, of which seven (7) are patrol. B. Hilt explained that three (3) of the patrol vehicles have over 150,000 miles on them. At the end of 2017 we were planning to replace one (1) and then another at the beginning of 2018; this was not done due the budget not being approved by NCT. In February, 2019 car 125 had almost 200,000 miles on it.
- Tilley asked if V. Nickell had the history of the Benecon refunds; he noticed it was $158,000 in 2019. V. Nickell explained that was not the amount of the refund, it is what was budgeted to offset the health insurance cost for 2019. The refunds are deposited into the Health Insurance Refund bank account, and then the money is used from the total accumulated over the years. The current balance in that bank account is $167,117. B. Hilt asked about the ammunition expense account – why is it more than was spent in 2018 when we will have three (3) less officers? V. Nickell replied we will need to qualify part-time officers. She then asked if the expense item for bullet proof vests includes part-time officers, shouldn’t it be higher? V. Nickell replied that the account includes two (2) vests that are expiring for our current officers; new vests for two (2) new full-time officers were included in the Police Equipment expense account. Nothing was added for part-time officers as they will be hired in 2019. R. Shearer asked what all is included in the Police Equipment expense account. V. Nickell replied we budget $300 for each officer and then she added $6,320 to equip the two (2) new full-time officers, including vests. B. Hilt asked if we can reduce the laptop cost since we will have fewer officers. V. Nickell replied that cost is determined by the number of vehicles, not the number of officers. The lease cost is set by York County, as that is who we lease the vehicle laptops from. M. Muir asked if the Chief’s Salary is just in case we hire a Chief – are the wages for the officer-in-charge included in the officers’ wages. V. Nickell replied no, the expense account for the officers’ wages is for ten (10) officers. If there isn’t a Chief, you would save approximately $15,000.
Motion by S. Stambaugh, second by M. Muir to approve the 2020 Budget Proposal with Benecon health insurance for submission to the member municipalities for their approval. Motion carried unanimously.
- Tilley asked if the next Police Board meeting will be July 24th. D. Schmidt stated we should meet due to the need to discuss the follow-up meeting with SRPD, if he and B. Hilt get to meet with them by the 24th. It was decided V. Nickell will e-mail the Police Board members by July 21st letting them know for sure if the meeting is needed and a post will be made on the department’s Facebook page notifying the public.
Meeting adjourned at 10:47 pm.