Council: EA1 development,
SPPD grant approved,
clarification requested
March 25, 2015
By Peggy Kelly
Santa Paula News
A discussion on the Limoneira Co. grant to the city that must be matched to boost public safety spun off into a discussion on support staff such as dispatchers and others that help those with their boots on the ground stay grounded.
In the end the council agreed that specifics on the grant, an issue that was first brought to the council and accepted in November 2013, must be laid out for the upcoming meeting.
Two councilwomen later said more details about the grant must be provided and questioned just what it would benefit.
The issue surfaced at the March 16 meeting where the revised Limoneira Co. agreement for their East Area development was on the agenda for the final reading.
In the interim a letter from Mayor John Procter — who recused himself from the hearing — had been included in the agreement asking the intent of the grant. The letter noted that the three-year $250,000 annual grant from Limoneira (totaling $750,000) is an amount that must be matched by the city (for a three-year combined total of $1.5 million), would be used for its original “intent” of hiring, retaining and equipping police officers.
Noting that many members of the public had questioned her about the grant’s use, Councilwoman Jenny Crosswhite asked that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar and addressed.
City Manager Jaime Fontes said the grant resulted from concern by Councilman Jim Tovias and a Limoneira representative that the city’s bloated crime rate and rising number of homicides might hamper the sale of homes in East Area 1.
Santa Paula’s deteriorating crime rate came on the heels of deep police department cutbacks through attrition that reduced the number of sworn officers from 34 to 20 and cut dispatch and clerical staff by 50 percent.
Tovias said, “ … it seemed things were getting out of control,” with nine homicides in 16 months and returning the department to full staffing was not only threatening the community at large but also creating a negative image of the city.
After more discussion Councilwoman Ginger Gherardi said she had deep concerns about the grant and what it would benefit.
“Some say there are strings on these funds,” that would exclude dispatch and records clerks,” a concern Gherardi said she shares with others.
Limoneira Co. representative Mike Penrod said the original intent was for police but anything benefiting public safety is needed; he also expressed frustration at the delay caused by the inclusion of the grant into the development agreement, never Limoneira’s intent.
After more discussion Gherardi said support staff must be included as dispatchers — vital to officers in the field — and records clerks must be treated fairly.
More comment from council members and staff was heard before Gherardi moved to approve the development agreement sans the letter calling out the specific spending parameters of the grant.
Tovias asked City Attorney John Cotti for his legal opinion on such an action.
There is original intent and then there is what is in writing, and Cotti said past records such as meeting notes could be pulled and studied; the next step could be a formal, negotiated agreement with Limoneira on how the grant funding would be spent.
“That’s fine,” said Gherardi, but Tovias said he wanted to hear from Penrod.
Said Penrod, “We’re open to whatever is best for the city,” and the most timely to move the development forward.
As it is, he added, the money would not be spent overnight.
The council voted 4-0 to approve the development agreement and the grant funding — but Procter’s letter was excluded per Gherardi’s motion — with the caveat that more details come back on its spending.
Later, Councilwoman Jenny Crosswhite said although there had been some talk about a spending plan at the meeting she has never seen a document laying out the parameter of potential grant allocations.
“It doesn’t have to be dollar-to-dollar,” but rather a general idea of what personnel and equipment costs are per officer as well as estimates of the costs of retaining officers.
In addition, Crosswhite said, “I feel dispatch plays a very important role in the department,” which now only has four dispatchers and should have a minimum staffing of six to handle the thousands of calls that the police department receives each year.
SPPD Dispatchers also receive thousands of calls annually for the Santa Paula Fire Department, emergencies that are forwarded to Ventura County Dispatch, which handles actual dispatching of fire personnel.
Rumors that the council’s action put the brakes on police officer hiring was questioned by Crosswhite, who noted the council was “Never told we had hires pending,” that now supposedly must be delayed.
But, it is another reason why Crosswhite said more transparency is needed: “The council and the public have to have an idea of how the money is going to be spent … this is too important for the community not to be done right.”
Gherardi also noted that the Limoneira Development agreement was approved, “And it includes a provision for a payment of $750,000 for law enforcement purpose.
“What was at issue was a letter written by the city, not Limoneira, that restricted the funds so that they could not be used to pay any costs to our also grossly underpaid dispatchers and records clerks, all of whom are important to running a police department.”
In 2014 the city and the Santa Paula Police Officers Association were at an impasse that lasted about a year over pay for dispatchers; reportedly the amount being disputed was a total raise of about $3,000 to be split among dispatchers.
Records clerks are members of another bargaining unit.
