CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE

DATE: December 9, 1998

MEMO TO: Standing Committee on Civic Services and Budgets

FROM: Ken Dobell, City Manager

COPY TO: Estelle Lo, General Manager - Corporate Services

Chief Constable Bruce Chambers

SUBJECT: 1999 Police Budget Submission

Background

On November 30, the Police Board approved its provisional 1999 Budget submission for submission to the City. The following recommendations were passed by the Board:

a) That the Board approve the provisional 1999 operating budget of $114,140,000 as summarized in Appendix 1 to Report #9891: 1999 Operating Budget
b) That the Board approve the Department's participation in the Downtown Eastside Police Beat Team Proposal outlined in Appendix 2 to Report 9891: 1999 Operating Budget
c) That the Board direct the Chief Constable to strike a working group composed of Union and Management representation to see if the Department can achieve the $1.2 million expenditure reduction requested by Council and report back to the Board at the Board's February meeting.

Further, the Board resolved:

That the Board not accept the Proposed Agreement regarding the Department budget and the Downtown Eastside Enforcement Strategy contained in the report dated October 21, 1998 and submit, instead, the 1999 Operating Budget and Downtown Eastside Strategy approved by the Board today.

Representatives of the Board will present the budget to the Standing Committee on Civic Services and Budgets on December 10.

Discussion

From the City Manager's perspective, the resolutions of the Board are constructive and offer a basis for Council and the Board to reach agreement on both the 1999 budget and the proposed Downtown Eastside Enforcement Strategy. There are, however, several issues on which Council and the Board must reach a clear understanding for discussions between this meeting and finalization of the 1999 budget to be productive.

1. Police Board Budget Submission

The budget submitted by the Board represents an increase of over 4% over the 1998 budget, and does not include an estimated $2.6 million the Board will pay E-Comm for new communications services in 1999. The Police Board is a member of E-Comm, and is obliged by virtue of its membership to pay E-Comm levies. In the event this funding was not included in the budget, the Board would be required to reduce other services to meet its budget. The additional $2.6 million results in a proposed budget increase in the order of 6.8%.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council confirm the Board's intention to include the E-Comm levy in its revised budget proposals, to be submitted prior to March, 1999.

2. Budget Timing

For better financial management, Council instructed staff during preparation of the 1998 budget to move to a two year budgeting cycle. In April of this year, Council notified all Boards that budget submissions should be prepared and submitted to permit review, during the fall of 1998, of overall budget issues for 1999. This would allow departments time to make budget reduction decisions, if required, to be effective for the entire 1999 budget year. The previous budget timing produced budget management decisions well into the budget year, reducing their benefit.

The Police Department worked within that timing to permit the City's overall budget to be analyzed, and participated in Corporate Management Team reviews which led to the recommended budget position, calling for 1% reductions in departmental budgets after allowance for wage increases and inflationary factors. This budget process, which establishes global targets early, with detailed budgets being finalized on the conventional budget cycle, has been welcomed by departments and most Boards.

The Police Act provides legal dates for finalization of the Police budget. If the Board chooses in future to adhere to these legal time lines, it will limit the effectiveness of the City's budget process. The Police Board resolution calling for a report back in February of 1999 on a

budget limitation decision for 1999 demonstrates the difficulty of the conventional budget cycle. Given that the timing for the City budget cycle is earlier than that reflected in the Police Act, following the City budget cycle should be advantageous to the Board, even providing additional time for a budget appeal by the Board should there be disagreement between it and Council.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council request the Board to operate within the multi-year budget planning cycle and timing established by Council, noting that this provides more time for budget planning by all departments and Boards, including Police.

3. Requested Budget Reduction of $1.2 Million

As noted above, the Police Department participated in the Corporate Management Team review of budgets and its budget recommendations to Council. The representatives of Boards function on the Corporate Management Team as technical advisors, assisting in policy development and operational City decision making. Each is accountable to his or her respective Board, and their participation is subject to their respective Board's decisions. Even with their restricted role, their participation is essential to the City's effective operation and to ensure the perspective of the Boards is reflected in City decision making.

Departmental budgets overall have been restricted for a number of years. While every department argued that it would utilize its normal budget effectively, and indeed could argue for additional funding with good justification, all acknowledged the need to limit budget growth and taxes. The Corporate Management Team was pleased to be in a position to support an "across the board" reduction of 1% after inflationary increases, limiting the City portion of the tax increase to 1%. This was on the clear understanding that all departments and Boards could achieve the stated targets without major disruption.

Given the general budget situation, the Police Board increase of 6.8% before the reduction can only be termed very significant at a time when City departments are being held to a total increase of approximately 2% before reduction. In the light of that global increase, and the large share of the City budget allocated to policing, Police participation in the tax limitation program is essential.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council urge the Police Board to accelerate its consideration of measures necessary to achieve budget limitations, and further urge that the Board give positive consideration to accepting its $1.2 million share of responsibility for the tax limitation program.

4. Downtown Eastside Revitalization

The Police Board has endorsed the proposed three year program for policing in the Downtown Eastside, but not approved the proposed "agreement" developed between the City Manager and the Chief Constable. The "agreement" provided that the additional Police resources would be used exclusively in the Downtown Eastside, and that Council would not seek further reductions in the Police budget during the term of the program, and equally, that the Board would not seek additional police resources during that time.

The limitations on Council and the Board arose as a result of the Police Department's proposal that Council not seek further reductions. The City accepted this position so long as the constraints were mutual. These limitations were essentially a statement of intent rather than a legally enforceable arrangement. They are not in any way central to the DTES policing program, and budget issues can readily be dealt with on a year to year basis. Indeed, the proposed limitations were more beneficial to the Department than the City.

The issue of reallocation of resources is a greater concern. The material submitted to and approved by the Board states that these resources "would be available for deployment to other areas only when the DES is stabilized".

Council's allocation of additional resources is for the Downtown Eastside and potential "overflow" issues which might arise from effective policing in the Downtown Eastside. Utilization of these funds outside general police duties is not the intent of the arrangement, and could only lead to pressure to continue funding at the end of the program as part of the general Police budget. This would be undesirable from a City perspective.

Due to a lack of available officers, the Department is only able to staff the DTES program at average over the year of 25 officers, instead of 40, during 1999. On that basis, the City's funding should be reduced to $3.2 million.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council request the Police Board to agree to the policing component of the DTES revitalization program on the reduced basis reflected in the submission to the Police Board, requiring a City contribution of $3.2 million for the three year period, and further,

That the Board agree that the officers funded through the program be allocated only to the Downtown Eastside and any areas affected by the relocation of criminal activity, with any excess available funding, if the Downtown Eastside and any adjacent areas affected by the policing program are stabilized in less than three years, to be allocated to reduce police budget requirements rather than increase general policing.

5. Information re Authorized Strength

The material presented to the Board indicated significant reductions in authorized strength from 1992 to 1997. This information does not reflect the significant civilianization programs undertaken by the Board, in which police officers in administrative and technical roles were replaced by civilians. It also does not reflect the Board's 1997 restructuring, which (according to Police submissions) increased the authorized strength to 1149, higher than the 1992 figure.

When the impact of civilianization and the Police restructuring is considered, the effective policing capacity of the Department should be higher than in 1992. Given reduction in call load and crime, the Department should be in a sound position to carry out its general mandate.

Conclusion

The resolutions of the Board provide the opportunity for a constructive conclusion in regard to establishing the 1999 Police budget and introducing the three year policing component of the Downtown Eastside Revitalization Program. In order to conclude these discussions successfully, recommendations are presented in this memo for Council discussion and confirmation with the Police Board.

Ken Dobell
City Manager

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver