Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-08 - RESOLUTIONS - LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES COSTS (2)A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO UNDERTAKE A FAIR AND NON -ARBITRARY AUDIT OF SHERIFF'S COSTS CHARGED TO THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CONTRACT CITIES WHEREAS, the contract cities of Los Angeles County provide significant support to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department through the reimbursement of additional costs incurred by the Sheriff in providing extra services to the residents of contract cities; and WHEREAS, the County, through the Board of Supervisors, has established a policy concerning which of the Sheriff's services will be provided on a county -wide basis and thus are not legally chargeable to the contract cities and has implemented a cost model designed to determine the amount of the costs appropriately charged to the contract cities; and WHEREAS, the provision of specified public safety services on a county -wide basis for both contract and independent cities promotes a coordinated and seamless approach to public safety; and WHEREAS, the importance of interjursidictional cooperation has been highlighted since the September 11, 2001 attacks; and WHEREAS, should the Board adopt the Auditor -Controller's recommendations which could lead to a reduction in current county -wide public safety services; and WHEREAS, any such reduction in county -wide public safety services should be subject to careful and deliberative debate and consideration and not considered hastily; and WHEREAS, the Auditor -Controller of the County of Los Angeles has for decades annually reviewed those rates that are properly charged to the contract cities; and WHEREAS, the Auditor -Controller has not undertaken a complete audit of all areas of Sheriff's costs but rather has confined his audit to those areas which he considered most likely to result in increases in charges to contract cities in accordance with his predetermined goal; and WHEREAS, the Auditor -Controller has undertaken to date only a partial review of Sheriff s Department costs and the various interim reports show numerous revisions and changes in approach; and WHEREAS, the Auditor -Controller's approach to date has provided the appearance of bias and has resulted in a loss of confidence in the process by many contract cities and their residents; and Resolution No. 05-24 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Auditor -Controller is rushing its selective audit in order to attempt to propose changes for the 2005-2006 fiscal year, we believe a complete and careful review including areas where contract cities have been potentially overcharged for Sheriff's services, should at least require 18-24 months; and WHEREAS, after the Auditor -Controller completes his present work, fairness dictates that the contract cities be provided a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on that work, but if the audit is only partial and if the contract cities do not have a reasonable opportunity to review and verify the findings and recommendations of the Auditor -Controller study, those results will be contested through litigation if they result in questionable cost allocations, thereby increasing County and municipal legal expenses at a time when revenues are strained for all local governments; and WHEREAS, contract cities earnestly seek to prevent city -county conflict over Sheriff cost allocations through negotiation; and WHEREAS, the contract cities fully support the annual review of contract cost under existing policies but are opposed to a drastic change in current procedures, methodology and policy; and WHEREAS, the current partial audit results (not including any changes in the cost of county -wide services), combined with other potential increases in Sheriff department costs which are properly billable to contract cities, may result in a.double digit percentage increase; and WHEREAS, a significant increase in the cost of Sheriff services due to an incomplete and rushed audit and/or a change in underlying County policy regarding the scope of county -wide services will result in cities either contracting with other police agencies or reducing their contract level of services with the Sheriff; and WHEREAS, a reduction in public safety services provided to the residents of contract cities by the Sheriff will result in a corresponding reduction in revenue to the County with the result being a probable decrease in total revenue to the County and a reduction in public safety services to the citizens of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Request that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors direct the Auditor -Controller to undertake a complete and thorough review, not a partial, selective, and rushed audit of all aspects of costs and expenses relating to the Sheriff's delivery of services to contract cities, including areas of potential current overcharging, and also address the unintended consequences of reduced public safety services to all of Los Angeles County residents with due deliberation and consultation with all affected parties and including time for the affected parties to review and verify such conclusions, as your Board directed in May of 2004. Resolution No. 05-24 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8`s day of March, 2005. IFIN i� Uy •' ATTEST: CTI'Y CLERK_ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8"' day of March, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS McLean, Weste, Kellar, Smyth None Ferry CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 05-24, adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on March 8, 2005, which is now on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, Califomia, this _. day of 20_. Sharon L. Dawson, CMC City Clerk By Susan Coffman Deputy City Clerk