What do you think. Thus far most people I've talked to in town are against reinstating the service. What do you think?
But remember, I'll post your opinion on Parkesburg Today but you have to tell me who you are and where you live. If I don't recognize you or can't validate your address, your comment will NOT get posted.
Here's the editorial. Let me know whether you agree or disagree and why.
| Parkesburg wrong to lay off police, cut back services Daily Local News Editorial (January 18, 2008) |
|
Whether it’s Coatesville or Parkesburg, people in charge of public safety aren’t listening: you cannot reduce the number of police. Ask any taxpayer and they’ll tell you the same thing: Raise taxes if you have to, cut some services if you have to, but do not lay off police anywhere. This is not a matter of politics nor should it be. It’s a matter of the safety and protection of people. The City of Coatesville tried it and was met with a storm of protest. These days with the amount of crime — specifically drug-related crime — cities and towns need more cops, not fewer. On Monday, Jan. 21, Parkesburg Borough Council will be making a decision that could cause major problems for not just the borough, but for the neighboring municipalities it serves. Council is expected to vote on whether it will stick to its layoff plan that cuts the Parkesburg Police Department in half and eliminates police services to neighboring municipalities. Also, council will vote on a police union contract proposal, according to Borough Council President David Jones. “We are following through with all of the promises we made at the last meeting. Our promise to the public was that we would give it our best effort to settle the labor dispute, revisit services contracted with municipalities, and also revisit furloughs. We have been doing that,” Jones said Wednesday. First, Jones said council will decide whether to approve a union contract proposal, of which the details have not been released. Then council will decide whether the police department will continue to serve three neighboring municipalities, Jones said. And finally, he said, council will decide whether to continue or abort its plan to lay off 11 police officers. The union said Monday officers are “cautiously optimistic that things are going to work out.” On Dec. 27, five days before the police union contract expired, council held a special meeting and agreed to lay off three full-time and eight part-time police officers. Council also agreed to terminate its police service contracts with Atglen, Avondale and Highland. Officials said the cuts would ease financial constraints, keep premiums down, and help maintain positive relationships with its neighbors because they would no longer be customers. We’re not sure how cutting off police services would generate “love” for Parkesburg. In fact, since then, law enforcement leaders and residents criticized the plan and accused officials of retaliating against police officers because parties could not reach a contract agreement. Under the layoff plan the department would be left with seven officers and its detective would move to patrol. The department would also not be able to participate in emergency response teams or the Chester County Drug Task Force. The layoffs will go into effect Jan. 31 unless council approves an alternative plan Monday. “I can tell you that reducing this force is going to do nothing to benefit the residents of Parkesburg,” said Les Neri, Tredyffrin police officer and vice president of the state fraternal order of police. “The timing came just prior to arbitration taking place … that is something that we do question the validity of.” We urge Parkesburg Borough Council to end this foolishness and not reduce its force or eliminate services. It isn’t about politics, it’s about protection. |
15 comments:
I have lived in the borough for almost 5 years and in Chester County my entire life. My husband and I moved to Parkesburg because you could get more house for your money and we were looking forward to starting a family. I also remember telling friends about our reasonable taxes. Now almost 5 years later, we have started our family and I find myself wanting to move out of the Borough mainly due to the high taxes we pay (considering the amount of property we own). Parkesburgs high taxes are affecting sellers and prospective buyers because of its taxes. While it is a slow market, homes in Parkesburg seem to be on the market longer and I feel its due to our high taxes. So I am in favor of anything that will keep our taxes from increasing even if that means less police! It does not suprise me that residents are faced with giving up more borough services to keep their taxes from increasing. We have already lost our bulk pick up and other small services which the borough used to provide in the last 5 years. By the way, I have not really done much research but why does Parkesburg have the second highest municipal millage rate in Chester County? We are also the highest for total millage at 43.4140 mills. Even the City of Coatesville does not pay 40 mills!
I would appreciate you posting this blog for other residents to comment. Don't get me wrong, I am concerned about how the lack of police may affect the crime rate in the borough but I am more concerned about taxes and my money! Most of our crime seems to be alcohol related or teenagers being stupid anyway. I have never felt my life was in danger living in Parkesburg but I may feel that way living in the City of Coatesville.
Ken,
Obviously I am a staunch supporter of the Parkesburg Police. As a resident in one of the communities that Parkesburg Police patrols, I can say that I have seen a marked difference in our daily living. I am grateful that our community pays for police services with Parkesburg.
I conduct business in the Borough of Parkesburg. I frequent the food establishments, the library and some of the retail shops. It goes without saying that the police presence is a comfort. They are highly visible and display a strong sense of community involvement.
As far as high taxes go...we live in the Octorara school district. It is one of, if not the highest taxed school districts in the county. I moved out here because of the low taxes, just like everybody else. 15 years later...my taxes are high. Not my local community tax but my school taxes. I don't complain about it though...it's just a fact of life.
Regarding local taxes...if paying more money for police protection is what I need to do...I'll do it.
Parkesburg has many of the best trained police officers this county has ever seen. You have a lot of talent in your Police Department, Ken, please don't let it go to waste.
The residents of Parkesburg Borough should understand that the contract municpalities are staffed with part time police officers. They don't receive benefits, pensions or insurance. They literally work for an hourly wage. 8 of those officers will lose their jobs if the contract areas fold. That's unfortunate but that's the name of the game.
However, the three fulltime officers that are targeted for layoffs...they cover Parkesburg Borough's streets. The residents of Parkesburg will be losing three very talented men. Men that cannot be replaced skill wise. These men bring a lot of training and expertise to the table. Without them and their particular training, the community of Parkesburg will suffer.
If the Borough is looking to save money and if tax payers are curious about where their money is being spent unnecessarily, look at the borough manager position. Roughly $68,000.00 per year for a person with inadequate credentials, a take-home car? That's frivolous government spending at it's finest.
The borough should have hired a borough manager with grant writing experience to offset some of the big spending they've done in the past year and a half. That new building is nice but the borough didn't have any money when they working out of the fire department's building. Where are they getting money to pay for the new place?
I remember when Parkesburg was looking to fill the position of borough manager a couple of years ago. None of the requirements set forth by the borough council in their job search are being met by the person currently in that position. Might I add to the residents of Parkesburg that the current borough manager was a member of borough council. When the position of borough manager came up he stepped down from council to "fill in" until a more suitable person could be hired. That never happened. The residents should be asking why.
Hi Ken. I would like to again express my support in Council's original decision to cancel the police contracts and make the unfortunate but necessary cuts to the Borough police department. It's a matter of fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers.
Tricia makes some interesting comments. Let us not forget though, that all of the police officers are covered by worker's compensation INSURANCE, whether they're part-time or full-time. The higher the police payroll, the higher the cost for worker's comp INSURANCE. And let's not forget about payroll expenses to the borough for ALL officers, part-time and full-time, such as Social Security and Medicare. I have also noticed the Chief of POLICE has a TAKE-HOME car. In fact, wasn't he involved in an accident in the TAKE-HOME car a couple of years ago when he was off-duty and had his children with him? And, I have seen the Chief use the TAKE-HOME car to drive his family to church in Coatesville. Funny that these facts weren't mentioned. They sound like potential INSURANCE nightmares.
Yes Tricia, all of us in the Octorara School District are paying high SCHOOL taxes, but not all of us are paying sky-high MUNICIPAL taxes, just those of us who own property in Parkesburg. Between my Borough property tax and trash fees, I pay over $1,000.00 a year. FACT, the Parkesburg 2008 property tax rate is 8 mils, the Atglen 2008 property tax rate is 4.1 mils. Almost half!!!
Tricia, from your comments, it sounds to me that you would agree that Atglen, Highland and Avondale taxpayers should either pay more for their police contracts with Parkesburg, or they should start their own police forces. I couldn't agree more. As a Parkesburg Borough taxpayer, I'm tapped out and frustrated over subsidizing police services to other municipalities.
Ken,
In rereading my latest post, I should clarify one point. I typed that the borough manager met "none" of the requirements council was looking for. I should have said "many". I am sure the manager meets some of the requirements. Anyone who ever held a job would at least have some of them.
Cindy,
I do not agree that more money is necessary to cover the contract areas. Based on what they are already paying...it is plenty. However, I would as a taxpayer, be willing to pay more.
As far as a take home car goes...police officers that have take home cars have them because they need to respond to emergency incidents, etc. Having said that, when an employee has a family and has to work, there is nothing saying that he/she can't have their family in said car prior to or after attending his/her job.
Also, when officers are involved in accidents in their police cars, it is the driver who is insured, not the car. Therefore, officers' personal vehicle insurance can be made responsible for the medical expenses.
Tricia,
Based on the figures put forth by my Council reps in Parkesburg, it is absolutely necessary for the other municipalities to pay more for police coverage!!! It's easy for you to disagree, as you DON'T LIVE IN PARKESBURG!!! Your tax dollars are not going to subsidize my police coverage. You nicely state that you're willing to pay more taxes for coverage, so PLEASE do!!!
And, I understand why a police officer may have a take-home car. But what I don't understand is how the officer is to respond to a Borough emergency with that car if he has his family in the car in Coatesville or Highland Twp, for example. Is the officer first going to take his family home in the take-home car and then respond to the emergency? Perhaps the take-home car should be exactly that, a car that sits at the officer's home for the officer's use in ONLY responding to a Borough emergency or coming on-duty. Otherwise, the officer is taking advantage of the Borough and its taxpayers. That's disrespectful.
Simply stated, if a Borough employee (police or civilian) is given a car to use by the Borough, that car should ONLY be used for Borough business, emergency or otherwise. It should not be used for transporting family or friends to their destinations.
Better yet, I bet you and I can agree that NO Borough employee should have a take home car, then there would be no issues of any kind. And, frankly, the Borough taxpayers CANNOT AFFORD IT!!!
Cindy...
You're correct I don't live in Parkesburg and as I stated my tax dollars DO go toward my police coverage. And I am happy to do that.
And OMG!! You are correct...how horrible that a person would take their family to church either before or after work...you should be outraged. I suggest you come to a borough meeting and voice that concern.
And Cindy...lest you forget ...this whole situation has NOTHING to do with a budget crisis. You seem to forget that council passed their 2008 budget weeks prior to announcing the cuts in the police department. This is all because of collective bargaining.
I certainly don't expect YOU to understand what's really going on here.
And talk about disrespectful...read the November blog here on this site. Take note of the overview of the Parkesburg Borough council minutes. Especially the part that states that a current council member and recently elected member had not paid their trash bill. If money is what their so concerned about perhaps they should be paying what they owe.
Tricia:
I know your tax dollars go towards YOUR police coverage. But, as you fail to acknowledge, MY tax dollars ALSO GO TOWARDS YOUR POLICE COVERAGE, and I resent that. If you were in the same boat, you'd resent it too. Of course you think that Atglen should not pay more for coverage, because that means YOU would have to pay more. Believe me, I know how that feels.
And yes, it is "horrible" (your dramatic word) that a police officer takes his family anywhere, church or otherwise, in a Borough vehicle that is supposed to be used for Borough business. The notion that the officer is taking his family to church doesn't make it more palatable. It was you who suggested that the Borough taxpayers should be outraged that the Borough Manager has a take-home car. Well, I am outraged that ANYONE employed by the Borough has a take-home car and uses it for ANYTHING other than Borough Business. You should be glad that your comment about the car has gotten noticed!! Wasn't that your intent?
And be assured that some, if not all, Council members are reading this blog, know who I am, and know how I feel about this issue. They also know of my history of attending Council meetings and speaking my mind. I have attended Borough meetings during which I spoke up and suggested to Council that they require the Borough employees, including police, to contribute to the cost of their health insurance to help control taxes. I have stood up at public meetings in opposition to a past Council's desire to use tax dollars to purchase land outside the Borough for a park. I have stood up at a special public meeting in opposition to Council's decision to spend tax dollars to buy the Johnstone building (today's Borough Hall). I am not shy about voicing my concerns, opposition and support to Council.
And yes, I agree that it is very disrespectful for Council members to have outstanding trash bills. Records will show that one of the two has paid his/her trash bill in full. The other one should be ashamed!!
Lets review. You brought up about the manager's take-home car and I agree with you and go a step further by adding the Chief's take-home car. You brought up about some Council members' outstanding trash bills, and I agree with you; shame on them. You brought up that you're paying for your police coverage, I agree with you and remind you that I'm also helping to pay for YOUR police coverage.
If nothing else Tricia, please take away from my comments that I am supportive of my Borough government being fiscally responsible to BOROUGH TAXPAYERS. Unfortunately, at this time, that means cutting services. It doesn't make me happy that some people will lose their jobs. Years ago, my husband was laid-off from his job two weeks before our first child was born. I know what that's like, I know it could happen again, and I NEED to know that my taxes are being controlled.
You may bring up more examples of wasteful spending, etc, but chances are, I will agree with you. It won't, however, change my mind about supporting the decision Council made in an effort to keep taxes under control for the next couple of years.
Tricia,
Balanced budget for 2008 was only balanced because for an additional year the borough was going to absorb a 20% overrun in the Police force salaries. The approved budget in 2008 for police salaries was 598k when the Manager of the Police department (Police Chief) had spent $654k in salaries for 2007 (20% over-budget). The police chief is the one to present his budget for his area each year. This was approved by the council. I do not know what industry you work in, but I do not know of any that would allow its department managers to go over-budget so much for so many years.
Maybe some work needs to be done on how to come up with an actual budget for the police that is attainable.
Cindy,
I'm pretty sure I made it clear that if contract areas had to up their taxes for police coverage...I'd be all for it.
I'm also pretty sure that I stated that police are given take home cars because they respond to emergency situations. Your point about the chief and his car has been heard by me. There's no need to assume that I didn't hear you the first time. I don't understand and never will understand why the borough manager needs a take home car. I do understand why police chiefs, fire chiefs, detectives, etc. have take home cars. I guess you and I will agree to disagree on this situation.
You can drone on about high taxes all you want. That's not the issue here.
Educate yourself on these issues:
union contract negotiations, unfair labor practices, collective bargaining and punishment for engaging in same.
These are the real issues at hand.
And as far as good men losing their jobs...I'm glad you are sympathetic to that. But not to worry. One of them just got hired where you work. I'm sure you'll make him feel welcome.
Tricia,
You made it clear that you are willing to pay for your police coverage. You also stated (check your earlier comments) that you believe Atglen, Highland and Avondale should not have to pay more for this coverage. I believe you are contradicting yourself.
You did state the police are given take-home cars so they may respond to Borough emergencies, to which I stated I understand. In other words, we do agree on this matter. But, you also stated that there is nothing saying the police officer cannot take his family to church or wherever in the take-home car. That type of use is PERSONAL not BOROUGH related. For heaven's sake, the officer and his family could even be at the Jersey shore on vacation in a car that is being supported with money from the Parkesburg taxpayers!
For you the issue is not high taxes as you DON'T LIVE IN THE BOROUGH. I do. So, for me the issue is very much about high taxes. It has been for years. You need to understand that. And, in fairness to you, I understand your position. If there was no proof of the budget crisis and financial problems in the Borough, your position would be valid. But the figures are there, along with high taxes that are likely to become higher if things in Parkesburg are not brought under control. I hope you're putting as much effort into encouraging Atglen, Avondale and Highland to pay more for police services as you are trying to convince me this has nothing to do high taxes, a budget crisis, etc. If you would do so, maybe the officers will not lose their jobs.
Yes, I understand that the police department where I work is proposing to hire another part-time officer. He will definitely be welcomed by me. My coworkers will tell you that I am very welcoming and pleasant to work with. But, are you sure it's an officer who is currently employed by the Borough and in jeopardy of losing his job, or is it a police officer who used to work for the Borough some years back and now works elsewhere? I think you would know.
Ken,
In keeping with your rules, I did identify myself and did not speak mean of anyone, I only spoke the truth and sometimes that hurts. I am curious as to why you will not post my entry and are requesting a phone call when all others are not required. You can not expect to know everyone who may post on this site.
I live in one of the affected areas that contracts with Parkesburg. It is important for Cindi Mammarella to understand that her tax money is not paying for service in Atlglen, Highland or Avondale. The residents in these municipalities pay a fee that covers for their police protection. Hypothetically, if Highland Twp. pays a fee of $60.00 per hour for police service and a Parkesburg part-time officer is paid $19.00 per hour that is $41.00 to Parkesburg that goes to cover insurance, car useage ect and there is still profit for the boro. David Jones was asked on more than one occaission to show his figures and how he came to those figures and he could not show them in the budget, wow.
Ken, it is obvious that you and the other members that worked on this plan had one intent in mind and that was to mis-lead all residents. Your thought that cancelling police service would bring neighbors together is just you needing a reality check. It shows that you are telling lies to cover up how you do not know what you are doing. this was all done to punish the police.
Ken, you did not know what your were doing on the school board you failed in your attempt to run a campaign for county commissioner and your actions in this matter have sealed your political career in the democratic party in this county. Party leaders will talk to you face to face but behind the scene you are persona non grata.
Dave Jones, enough said. Jim Thomas, his career with the Parkesburg should have ended in 1992 when he was "fired" for stealing from the boro. The fact that you guys even hired him back shows that you all have an agenda. Mr. Perch's comments in the Post were interesting, he is not in favor of the police contracts (these make money for the boro). I can understand his lack of business accumen since he took part in running the family supermarket business his father started into the ground.
Rest assured Ken you will probebly will not post this since it is the truth and you can not handle it. At the meeting tonight I have a good idea of how it will play out. How does this sound, Council will reverse their decision and look like the saviors of the town. The residents will not buy it and realize the real deal. By and large the residents off all four towns are not in favor of your planned layoffs. Interesting you say that by far the people you spoke with are in favor of it. Where were they at the meeting 2 weeks ago, ony 2-3 were in favor in that crowd. Everyone knows that Cindi M. is just hot air and Chris, well maybe his next run for council will work out better.
Thanks for you time Ken. See you at the meeting tonight.
S.Camp
Mr. Knickerbocker, this message is in response to Carie Spato, Cindi, Chris, and Tricia.
Cindi,you keep mentioning part of you high taxes go to pay for police coverage in the contracted areas. You clearly have a lack of understanding on how it works.Part of the taxes paid by the residents of the contracted areas goes towards their police contracts and all funding required to have said officer in their borough is paid by their contract. You are not paying for it! As well as any extra costs such as overtime that may occur say in Atglen for instance is paid for by Atglen residents not Parkesburg residents. Ken as a Parkesburg councilman you should be more than familiar with how these contracts work. The fact that you have failed to clarify this in your blog could mean maybe you do not understand how they work, scary!
Chris, where did you come up with this 20 percent increase in one year? The salary increases were budgeted each year for the term of the contract. If you have a job, I am sure you would feel that the work you do is worthy of a raise. Correct me if I am wrong.
Carie Spato, wake up!!!! If you honestly believe that the only problems in your area are teenage antics and alcohol related issues you are a bit clueless.Not all crimes are made public by police for various reasons. Just this evening it was mentioned at tonights Parkesburgs Borough council meeting a child predator was taken off of 8th Ave. were he lived. Obviously it can not be reported during the investigation that police are looking into a child predator on 8th Ave as to not jeapordize case integrity and public safety. That does not sound like teenage antics.Also at tonights meeting it was reported that there was an armed home invasion on Main St. in Parkesburg in broad daylight.
All the more reason Parkesburg Police should be in Parkesburg as well as the surrounding areas. Crime has no borders. Your police are now more knowledgable of the thugs and malcontents that are causing the crimes. Parkesburg Police patrolling Atglen has curbed the drug market at Glenbrook. These drugs more than likely would find there way to Parkesburg.
So Carie, I ask you to try and have more accurate knowledge of what is really going on in your area.
Tricia,
Thank goodness someone gets it and comes to the table prepared with all the proper knowledge, true facts and accurate figures. You did your homework!! I commend you!!
To all those who feel that these police contracts are raising their taxes and want a way to lower their taxes, why not start with the biggest TAXER of them all,the school district. Please visit www.ptcc.us and support this measure, known as House Bill 1275. If passed school taxes no more. Thats some lower taxes. Put your money were your mouth is and spend less time on this blog and more time calling your local Rep and all Reps not onboard by the 28th of Jan. Support that!!
Parkesburgs high taxes are not caused by these Police contracts. It is due to years of fiscal mismanagement by the elected officials and those appointed. For instance the current Borough Manager is being paid almost $70,000 a year for ajob he is not qualified for. But it gets worse, this is the same person that a past borough council aprox. 15 yrs ago forced out as the police chief because he was working at the Mill in Coatesville while is was supposed to be on duty in Parkesburg protecting and serving the residence. He was putting in for time and hours not even worked but taking the money for it. Does this sound like theft? Fiscal mismanagement at its finest, asked to resign verses prosecuted like many others not prosecuted for swindling funds. The mistakes of past are hard to correct when ignored.
Let me ask all of you this, What is the cost of a life, yours, your families, your neighbors, your friends? Cutting police puts lives in danger. Paying more taxes against that of perserving ones safety and life should not even be a thought. Cutting coverage should be the last thing you should ever attempt to do. These Officers are not paid enough to put their life on the line on a daily basis to protect and serve your community.
I am a current resident of Atglen and have been for 4 plus years and my family has resided in Parkesburg for over 50 years and yes I am a huge Police supporter, a mother, a wife, a daughter, and a concerned citizen.
Thank you for your time and for Kens blog.
Cindy,
I did say that I felt as though the contract areas, particularly where I live, pay enough money to Parkesburg. I ALSO said that if more money was necessary, I would be happy to have my taxes raised to do so.
Therefore, I wasn't contradicting myself. I was simply stating that the dollars per hour were not an issue in the canceling of the contract areas. However, if the money really was the issue, then as a tax payer in a contracted area...I would be happy to pay more money.
But again...the issue here is the police union's contract. The borough used the layoffs as punishment for collective bargaining. If you really want the whole story... ask the right people. You were at that meeting on Monday night...you saw the council member majority vote on putting the layoffs/terminations on the back burner until March. Including Ken Knickerbocker. Does this strike you as odd? They were passionate about how they were "getting out of the police business" and passionate about the contract areas being bad for the borough at the meeting on Jan.7th. Why the change of heart? You should ask yourself this. I will tell you why...the layoffs and terminations were NEVER about the contract areas. They were about COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
As far as your "I think you should know" comment... of course I am sure that the officer hired where you work is one of the officers that received a termination letter from Parkesburg after their 12/27 meeting. You were at the meeting on Monday night, I'm certain you saw him there in full Parkesburg uniform.
Hi Tricia:
My last comments were left several days ago, and weren't posted for awhile. I figured Ken must have needed a break. Well, things didn't turn out how I would have preferred at last Monday's meeting. I still believe that Parkesburg Council should be looking out for the Parkesburg residents, and I don't think the police contracts with Avondale, Highland and Atglen are benefiting
the Parkesburg residents.
Believe me, I've been frustrated for years with the Parkesburg Council, past and present. I've been "debating" with you but frustrated and in opposition at many decisions made by Council over the years. We'll see how things go, but I believe that continuing the contracts puts Parkesburg in a precarious situation for the future. There exists the potential for lawsuits, worker's comp issues, etc., that may be incurred in the contracted municipalities but that will be the financial responsibilities of Parkesburg Borough in the future. I don't like the idea of Parkesburg Borough Council saddling the Parkesburg taxpayers with these potential problems.
I don't blame the police union members for this issue. I know this is not their fault. They are caught in the crossfire unfortunately. But, think about the public comments made at the meeting in opposition to the contracts, no one is blaming the police officers, the police department, or the union. The opposing Parkesburg residents feel their tax dollars are not being used in the most fiscally responsible way. That's it in a nut shell.
And, yeah, you're right. My mistake. I understand the officer hired where I work used to work full-time in Parkesburg but now works there just part-time, so he would have received a termination letter. And yes, I did see him in "full Parkesburg uniform" on Monday night. We should get the opportunity to introduce ourselves to each other in the near future.
Stay well.
Post a Comment