Does Lancaster need more police?

Village of Lancaster resident Paul Nosbisch Jr. addressed the Lancaster Town Board Monday night and opined that they did, suggesting that the board consider adding more police to the force.

Nosbisch declared that with the change in the board makeup this would be a good time to bring this matter forward; especially for the sake of police safety. Saying that he has done his own studies, along with talking to other people who do like studies, he suggests the town apply for a grant. He remarked that there is a formula in place now on how municipalities should be staffed.

Nosbisch: As I drive around the town, no matter where you go I cannot believe the number of housing units going up. This huge growth brings in more people and businesses – all the hotels going up, and the new one on Transit. We all know we have a lot of calls there. We would all be safer.

How can any police officer, especially second shift… Chief Gill tells me that’s a high volume call. Even in day time I see a police car rushing from one end of town down Transit to the other because you know there are calls and they are going on to the other side of town.

We need to really look at this again because the last Supervisor took a different approach. The police are patrolling such a vast area now; so many additional streets. There is no way that with the lack of police officers in the town that all calls can be answered and/or in a timely manner. There needs to be a brand new grant, like I said.

As the town has grown the fire departments have been given the right apparatus to do the right job. A police cruiser has been cut from the force. If an apparatus was cut from the fire department all hell would break out by this town board; but it has happened to the police.

Those police cruisers have a lot of down time. How often do you see them sitting in parking lots side by side just shooting the ****?

This is not the LPD but it shows one way of catching a thief

https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8188/2...9877d1683d.jpg ;););)

I would be very interested to hear of the ‘formula’ to determine police needs as mentioned by Mr. Nosbisch.

Over the past decade using the sworn officers per thousand of population as our staffing standard has been found to be none realistic with the current economic conditions local governments are facing.

The use of officers per thousand for police or fire deployment is an ineffective performance measure. Instead, the determination should be made by what time is required to perform the given tasks on a daily, monthly, and seasonal basis and deploying the appropriate resources to manage the workload.

Many chiefs will state that the ‘officers per thousand’ standard is a "national standard."

Police agencies routinely speak about:

• “Recommended officers per 1,000 population” or

• “National Standard” for staffing or

• Comparisons to other municipalities

There are no such standards. Nor are there “recommended numbers of officer per thousand”. And, it has been found not useful to make comparisons with other communities.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) states; “Ready-made, universally applicable patrol staffing standards do not exist. Ratios, such as officers-per-thousand population, are totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions.”

I want to state first that I appreciate the police in our town. They have done a great job protecting our town.

I suspect that when all those police showed up on more than one occasion at the town board during the last election probably was a good measure for the current board to gauge in terms of the needs of this town.

Only if the areas with the highest percentage of crime/calls pay the most in their tax bills for police protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

I would be very interested to hear of the ‘formula’ to determine police needs as mentioned by Mr. Nosbisch.

Over the past decade using the sworn officers per thousand of population as our staffing standard has been found to be none realistic with the current economic conditions local governments are facing.

The use of officers per thousand for police or fire deployment is an ineffective performance measure. Instead, the determination should be made by what time is required to perform the given tasks on a daily, monthly, and seasonal basis and deploying the appropriate resources to manage the workload.

Many chiefs will state that the ‘officers per thousand’ standard is a "national standard."

Police agencies routinely speak about:

• “Recommended officers per 1,000 population” or

• “National Standard” for staffing or

• Comparisons to other municipalities

There are no such standards. Nor are there “recommended numbers of officer per thousand”. And, it has been found not useful to make comparisons with other communities.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) states; “Ready-made, universally applicable patrol staffing standards do not exist. Ratios, such as officers-per-thousand population, are totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions.”

---

In this publication starting on page 28 -
A Step-By-Step Approach for Conducting
a Workload-Based Assessment

This method is designed to provide staffing estimates for the patrol division. That is, it is
based on the assumption that officers spend some fraction of their time handling citizengenerated
calls for service.
There are six steps in this process:
1. Examine the distribution of calls for service by hour of day, day of week, and month
2. Examine the nature of calls for service
3. Estimate time consumed on calls for service
4. Calculate agency shift-relief factor
5. Establish performance objectives
6. Provide staffing estimates

A Performance-Based Approach to Police Staffing and Allocation

I have stated/written numerous times in the past that I support the town having its own police force. I openly supported the Town/Village merger in 2003 and have always spoken favorably on the response time by the police in time of emergency.

However, before the board ever decides to increase the number of police there is some history that needs to be reviewed. To say the police are underserved and need more without examining where the force was at the time of merger in 2003 and the resources provided since then are irresponsible.

• Based on the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) Office of Public Safety (OPS) review in May 2001, consolidation of the two police departments could save taxpayers between $730,000 and $750,000 annually. That never happened!

• The OPS analysis and projected cost savings were clearly based on a total combined staff of 39 sworn officers. That never happened! The staffing was 43 sworn officers. We now have 49 sworn officers.

• The OPS analysis and projected cost savings were clearly based on eight desk/dispatch personnel. There are now 11 dispatch and 4 clerk positions.

• In 2004, the first budget year after the Town and Village police merger the police budget was $6.03 million. The police budget for 2016 is $9.70 million; includes 49 sworn officers, 11 dispatchers and 4 clerk positions.

• The purchase and sale of the Walden Avenue Colecraft Building in 2003 for the purpose of housing the police and courts after the police merger – several millions of dollars wasted in this project.

• The bonding of $10 million to construct a police/courts building and a police shooting range at Pavement Road – will cost another several million to pay off the debt.

• Last year, Supervisor Fudoli’s studies indicated the town could eliminate one sworn officer position by attrition when a retirement occurred. The four Democratic council members said no because they were told by the Chief that he needed that officer.

• No police department employee contributes to his or her health insurance plans. For the past several years the town has been contributing 30% of a police officer’s salary to the NYS Retirement System and $19,300 for a family plan health insurance policy.

• Police perks are numerous and generous.

• Police drive each other to and from work and get a $1,000 stipend for doing so.

• In last year’s police negotiated contract for the years 2012 and 2013 the cost to the town was $800,000 and where no compromise was had considering their contributing to their health care.

The police have done well in the past decade. The taxpayer, not so much! If the town were to consider adding police positions it will have to generate solid reasons for doing so – high crime rate and felonies.

If I understood correctly, Mr. Nosbisch declared businesses and hotels/motels were the cause of a large number of police calls. Perhaps the town should consider a different police tax rate for the aforementioned – similar to what yaksplat suggested in his post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
If I understood correctly, Mr. Nosbisch declared businesses and hotels/motels were the cause of a large number of police calls. Perhaps the town should consider a different police tax rate for the aforementioned – similar to what yaksplat suggested in his post

---

The police blotter has the LPD at Freeman Rd motels very frequently.

Edit:

It would be interesting to know the number of calls that go to that area

47 years ago, I would have said, "Are they roasting a sheriff or a trooper?"

https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8165/2...64c30d7f_b.jpg

Will there be a DWI checkpoint nearby?

I don't live in Lancaster & I'm not really familiar with staffing at the Town and Village police and the potential savings from merger, redeployment etc. I do live in a nearby town with more cops and I'm damned glad to pay for them. We once had an idiot supervisor who was a UB professor and he was going to study the issue and arrive at the "correct" number of police, as if there were a magical formula to determine such a thing. And I have no problem with a pension system that allows coppers, firefighters and the like to retire at an early age. Couple years back I was on my way down city to the office and 2 deputies had a fellow pulled over and were frisking him. I'm no kid but I'm not ancient either. Nonetheless, I tried to visualize me and a buddy frisking this guy and I was damned glad those deputies were half my age and not me and a friend. Strange as it seems sometimes, there's a rough logic to the way things are. Give me more that enough cops to keep my town safe and more that enough highway workers to keep the roads open.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grump

I don't live in Lancaster & I'm not really familiar with staffing at the Town and Village police and the potential savings from merger, redeployment etc. I do live in a nearby town with more cops and I'm damned glad to pay for them. We once had an idiot supervisor who was a UB professor and he was going to study the issue and arrive at the "correct" number of police, as if there were a magical formula to determine such a thing. And I have no problem with a pension system that allows coppers, firefighters and the like to retire at an early age. Couple years back I was on my way down city to the office and 2 deputies had a fellow pulled over and were frisking him. I'm no kid but I'm not ancient either. Nonetheless, I tried to visualize me and a buddy frisking this guy and I was damned glad those deputies were half my age and not me and a friend. Strange as it seems sometimes, there's a rough logic to the way things are. Give me more that enough cops to keep my town safe and more that enough highway workers to keep the roads open.

---

I am trying to understand your post. While you admit you don’t live in Lancaster and don’t know Lancaster’s police staffing, how can you claim your town has more cops? And, are you that well off that spending for something possibly not needed is prudent?

Why was the UB professor/ supervisor an idiot for trying to right-size his police department? Yes, there is no magical formula and that is what is being claimed by the resident who appeared at Town Hall.

Like you residents do value their police to the extent that they choose to pay for their police force and not opt to have the sheriff’s department patrol their streets like other municipalities. Are they entitled to pensions/benefits/perks that are far more generous than the majority of those paying for those generous contracts, some take issue with that – and especially when the police adamantly refuse to compromise and contribute to their generous ($19,300) family plans. So are you saying there should be no system in place to hold this department accountable?

What disturbs me more is that the public fails to see how the hands of the police are being tied from doing their jobs by a judicial system that favors the rights of the criminals and law violators over that of the police. What a world we now live in where a police officer is demeaned, riots break out, businesses are burned down, etc., all because a police officer shot a criminal in the act of a crime and where the police officer asked the perp to drop his gun and he refused.

Fortunately, Lancaster is not South Chicago; or even the City of Buffalo. There is much to study before saying we need more police because the population has grown. The merger clled for 39 sworn officers. There are now 49 and the supporting staff has grown from 8 to 15.

Ok, glump is referring to Amherst. The UB Professor is Professor Mohan. And Amherst is demographically larger, is next to a first ring urban city, and in conclusion is not a fair comparison to Lancaster.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Perhaps the town should consider a different police tax rate for the aforementioned – similar to what yaksplat suggested in his post.

---

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...-group-tourist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shortstuff

Ok, glump is referring to Amherst. The UB Professor is Professor Mohan. And Amherst is demographically larger, is next to a first ring urban city, and in conclusion is not a fair comparison to Lancaster.

---

You're right it is Amherst and as I said I don't know about the size of Lancaster pd. And I didn't say it compared to Lancaster. All I said is that I don't mind paying for cops. I didn't say I don't believe in accountability...by the pd and every other part of government. As I've said so many times in other posts and other venues anyone who doesn't like the benefits paid by the state and local pension system should run for office, get elected and change it. Nothing to it. Satish Mohan is an idiot who didn't have the first stinking clue about running town government...any of it.