Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 05 2009 @ 09:43 PM CDT

Thank you !

I would recommend everyone do their own research before making a
decision one way or another. For example, the sheriff said his plan
was more economical when looked at "objectively". In other words,
take the human element and emotion out of it and decide purely on
numbers / dollars and cents. This is very hard to do, but if you want
to look at the situation objectively and overlook the human element
you also have to look at the real numbers. The sheriff's proposal calls
for fewer cops in our neighborhoods. You cannot do the job of 27 with
17 or 18 cops, bottom line. The sheriff's contract plan said the cost of
a deputy assigned to Pewaukee was $149,275 per year. The
Pewaukee Police Department currently provides police service for
$104,163 per year. In other words, it is $45,111 a year cheaper to
have a City of Pewaukee Police Officer patrol your subdivision than a
deputy from the county. The only way it is cheaper to contract with
the sheriff is to undercut the current level of police service. If the
current level of police service was to remain the same and the City
contracts with the sheriff's department it would cost the City of
Pewaukee $4,030,525. The current PD budget is 2.9 million.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 07 2009 @ 10:16 PM CDT

This is a question for Dale. Is the last posting an accurate estimate of the cost? It seems to me that this differs significantly from what the sheriff proposed.

I don't recall the dollar amount, but seem to think it was somewhere around $95,000 per deputy for county services. Also, am I correct to say that the sheriff said they recommended a command staff and patrol officers, totaling 25? If I remember correctly, he said he could hire up to 19 officers without having to have them take Civil Servant exams, and an additional 6 could take the exam and probably get a position.

I think that the previous poster must be a CPP officer. I got this same info in a flyer that was left in my paper box this morning. There are valid issues raised in the flyer, but I was disappointed to see that no one claimed ownership of it.

When someone distributes flyers without a name tied to it, I am highly suspect of the accuracy of the information. How can this info be verified? Where can we look to come up with the figures quoted in the flyer?

I think it is great that someone is making the effort to make people aware of what's going on by distributing information, but without ownership of the document, it's little more than gossip. Please come forward and identify the source and distributor of the flyers. Without that information we can not help but think that whoever is distributing the flyers is not giving us the same old smoke and mirrors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 07 2009 @ 10:53 PM CDT

the sheriff said the pewaukee contract would take 18 deputies, which he was hoping to take from the existing officers in pewaukee. in addition he has 6 slots open which current pewaukee officers would be given a period to apply for. these positions would not cover pewaukee. none of these positions are guaranteed. also, command staff or not, 18 deputies equals a lot less manpower than 27 officers for a city the size of pewaukee.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 07 2009 @ 11:33 PM CDT

The information you find in your mailboxes is being distributed by the Police Department. The officers are walking around neighborhoods in an attempt to make the citizens aware of what is going on. I spoke to one of these officers for about 10 minutes today.

To the previous poster - using your logic means every municipality should contract with the Sheriff's Department b/c I can guarantee the Sheriff can lowball an offer to every city/town/village. As my neighbor says, money should not be an issue when it comes to public safety. Do you think you're safer with 18 officers compared to 27 officers?

When it comes to services, the Sheriff's Department can't provide what is being provided now. The Sheriff was very misleading. He states he provides extra services (i.e. SWAT team, K9) but what the public needs to realize is these services are already provided to the City of Pewaukee under Mutual Aid laws at no extra charge. The City of Pewaukee PD actually has an officer already on the SWAT team.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 09 2009 @ 09:26 AM CDT

"As my neighbor says, money should not be an issue when it comes to
public safety."

I think we all should have our own personal policeman in that case. I
want a big one.

My neighbor thinks money should not be an issue when it comes to
education. She's wrong too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 09 2009 @ 02:20 PM CDT

You obviously don't understand the whole "money should not be an issue" concept. You must be Alderman Kiser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dale on Tuesday, September 08 2009 @ 07:25 AM CDT

While I can verify that the Sheriff's proposal stated that adding a single patrol shift for 5 days a week is $149,275 ($192,628 for 7 days a week) I cannot say that I can confirm the $104,163 per officer that the poster was trying to imply. There are other factors that need to be included in the 'cost per officer' calculation. Unfortunately, I do not have ready access to all the figures.

Can the Sheriff provide the same level of service that we currently get with less people? The proposal was to hire 18 to cover the level of service that the Sheriff proposed. Does that mean we would be restricted to only those 18 individuals or could be draw from the larger pool to cover work for those on vacation, who are sick, in training or in court? If there is a need for 18 deputies to cover the contract, why would the Sheriff be holding back on 6 open position and look to hire 24 individuals if the contract were to go through? That is a clarification that must be made.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 09 2009 @ 02:25 PM CDT

I am not aware of any report on the activity of the police department.

This could be helpful in evaulating the need for police services and how effective the department has been.

How many hours spent on traffic monitoring and the revenue produced? The crime statistics and the rate of solving crimes. What activity is done to prevent crime? It appears that we do not have a complete picture of the effectivenness of the police department.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 07 2009 @ 10:57 PM CDT

Why does the issue have to be considered as anti-current CPPD? If there is someone who can provide a service at as much as a 25% “direct-cost” savings from the one currently used – regardless of how much you like the latter, how many would NOT go for the lower cost. When the question involves other people’s money (e.g. taxpayer dollars) how many would NOT take an even more conscientious look at a potentially lower-cost option. The $ per officer analogy being distributed (same dollar amounts quoted above) would only be correct if the sheriff's department was not also going to take on many additional costs incurred by the city but not specifically allocated to the PD in the city budget. First, all personnel responsibilities – including police contract negotiations and all union-related issues – would be assumed by the sheriff’s department. Think Human Resources & administrators' time, time spent in negotiation meetings by numerous officers on duty time and city officials. To pass these costs to the sheriff's department is a HUGE cost savings. Recent department concerns have been about no supervisor on third shift (higher cost in order to provide this) and constant calls for more police cars and equipment. The proposal provides 24 hour supervisory coverage and takes on all car/equipment costs (and headaches). Finally, the current costs of the city pension plan and the state’s program differ significantly. The sheriff's proposal includes the more-expensive state pension cost – which many feel is a much better option for future security. I'm sure there are a number of other costs that could also be saved. Adjustments for all these areas need to be made before you can compare the total costs to taxpayers. We need to be comparing apples to apples. Costs are a major factor in these extremely tight economic times. I hope those attending next Thursday’s meeting will treat one another with respect. As hard as it may be to do - emotions do need to be put aside.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 09 2009 @ 11:54 AM CDT

What I understood was one - we WOULD draw from the larger pool to cover work for vacations & sick leave. Not sure about training or court. Regardless, the leave & sick coverage would bump up the coverage issue (18-versus 27) since every time the CPPD stated their staffing needs they included extra officers due to those coverage needs. Regarding the 6 - I heard he had openings for the sheriff's department in general - exclusive of Pewaukee - that he had held off hiring which would provide additional hiring oppotunities for displaced Pewaukee officers, just not in the City of Pewaukee. Many Pewaukee officers (more that 60-70 percent?) do not live in the city or village, some many miles away. An assignment somewhere else might be desirable to them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 09 2009 @ 02:24 PM CDT

There is not one officer at the City of Pewaukee Police Department who would find it more "desirable" to have the police department abolished. No one is guaranteed a job anywhere if that were to happen. And if they do get a job they'll make much less money and lose seniority. Doesn't sound very desirable to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 09 2009 @ 06:38 PM CDT

So police officers must be the source of the flyer if they are the distributors. Too bad they didn't see fit to acknowledge themselves as the source. From an "our department is very professional" standpoint, not attributing themselves as its source seems to challenge that assertion. Hopefully none of the distributors were on the city clock when they were stuffing paper boxes. Assume they can document that city property was not used to make hundreds (thousands?) of copies. That would be totally wrong. Last comment – money should not be THE issue. But to exclude it as being one of several important factors would be senseless and foolish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 09 2009 @ 10:32 PM CDT

While I understand the frustration you are expressing, I feel that government employees in general have been a privileged group for many years.

In the 1980's our area suffered huge job losses when American Motors, Briggs, Harley, A.O. Smith, Kearney & Trecker, Cutler Hammer, etc.......... either shut their doors or laid off thousands of workers. Economics was the driving factor. During that recession, and most of those which followed it, our government employees maintained their job security and benefits. It's not that way anymore. This recession is hitting every level of our state and our country.

The taxpayer has been squeezed dry. Most of us have not been given a cost of living increase for years. Meanwhile our health insurance costs have skyrocketed, we can't use the equity in our homes to buy anything, because the equity evaporated in 2008, and our credit card companies have capped our lines of credit. We just don't have it to give to you.

What have other displaced workers done? They went back to school to learn a new skill, they re-located to areas where their skill was still needed, or they took lower paying jobs to support their families.

I think that the PPD is just the beginning of the end to life as government employees have known it.

Ms. Turnip

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 10 2009 @ 12:28 PM CDT

Ms Turnip,

You are failing to understand a couple things.

First, you can't compare private industry to public service. The motivation behind the two are completely different. A police department is not a profit driven organization.

Second, abolishing a police department does not get rid of government employees. They will just be replaced by other government employees that our tax dollars will pay for.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 10 2009 @ 01:09 PM CDT

I think Ms Turnip has a pretty good grasp of things. The CPPD seems to
think that this city owes its members a living. It doesn't, any more than
Mercury owes its employees a living.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 10 2009 @ 05:01 PM CDT

You owe whoever patrols your city a living. The same reason you owe whoever paves the roads a living. That's one of the reasons you pay taxes. It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. If it isn't the current CPPD employees it's going to be Waukesha County Deputies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 11 2009 @ 06:43 AM CDT

I take it your not employed

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 10 2009 @ 11:31 PM CDT

I am aware that if the CPPD is abolished my tax dollars (minus a few according to the Sheriff) will go towards another government entity.

Even if my tax dollars are not reduced by what the sheriff projects, any extra funding would be added to my county tax. The city's fair market value is around $2 Billion. Waukesha county (and I haven't checked it) is probably in excess of $20 Billion. This means that additional costs we may have over and above the contract Would be split anoung all of the taxpayers in Waukesha County, not just the few in our community.

[ Reply to This | # ]