RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Springfield police budget up by 20 percent



Toolbox

By Susan Smallheer Staff Writer - Published: January 11, 2009

SPRINGFIELD – Springfield Police Chief Douglas Johnston warned town officials this week that a new proposal from the Douglas administration would result in a major cost shift to the town. He said the plan would force the town to be fiscally responsible for the transportation of criminals.

In a budget session before the Springfield Select Board Thursday night, Johnston said because of a proposed cut in the state allocation for the sheriffs' departments, local police departments would become responsible for moving newly arrested people to jail and then to court arraignments.

Johnston said the Springfield police department makes more arrests in Windsor County than any other law enforcement agency. This is compounded by the distances between facilities: The Southern State Correctional Facility is located in Springfield and court arraignments take place in White River Junction.

"The intent is to take money away from the sheriffs. If (prisoners) are lodged overnight, we would have to bring them to court. Hopefully that won't happen," Johnston said.

Johnston's proposed budget for 2009 is $1.7 million budget, up $338,000 from the $1.3 million the town spent on the police force last year.

The 20 percent increase is largely due to the cost of maintaining the new police station on Clinton Street and a new salary system the select board adopted last year, which gives longtime employees who have reached the top of their pay grade an extra two grades for merit. All town employees receive a cost-of-living increase, and the Springfield police force, like most town departments, is unionized.

Johnston said he realized that the state, the town, as well as the country was in an economic crunch, "but what they're trying to do is place it back onto the local municipalities. They're looking at forcing municipalities to pay for this."

Johnston had also asked the board for an additional $65,000 to fix the new station's leaky roof. The station, which was converted from a former industrial building, has two leaks, one in the "Quonset hut" portion of the building, and another in the front of the building.

Town Manager Robert Forguites proposed eliminating the $65,000 in the capital budget for the roof repairs. He said the money would instead come from the roughly $200,000 left over from the $2 million bond issue that was approved by voters for the new police station and renovations to the town hall.

The renovations to the bottom floor of the town hall still haven't occurred, while the police moved into the new station last February after more than six months of renovations. The board recently appointed a committee to work with Forguites on the town hall renovations.

Johnston also said the Springfield schools are proposing a school resource officer for Springfield High School, but he said he wouldn't support the plan unless the school district would agree to pick up 75 percent of the cost. So far, it is offering to pay 50 percent.

"The need is there," the chief said.

Under the plan, the designated position for a drug detective would be converted to the school resource officer. The total cost of an officer with pay and benefits would be $70,000; the town's portion would be 25 percent, or $17,500, according to Forguites.

Johnston expressed concern that he would lose the drug detective slot if the school was forced to cut the school resource officer position. The Springfield schools have a long history of budget defeats.

The Springfield Select Board will continue budget discussions on Monday at the town hall. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.








READER COMMENTS


Am I mistaken, or did the voters of Springfield approve the placement of the prison here, and the Rec. Center, and the development of the State office building, centralizing human services? We can hardly say the State "gifted" us -- we've made our own bed!
-- Posted by Doreen Robinson on Tue, Jan 13, 2009, 6:07 am EST

report this comment



My own side-note re: a high school cop: not only can we not afford it, as Bill O. Rights points out, but could there be any better evidence of the failure of a school than the need to staff a special police officer for it? What does this say about the safety and efficacy of that school's educational environment? Is Springfield the Big City now, that it's high school needs it's own police?

There's a cheaper solution that actually works better anyway: if Springfield High School is harboring juvenile delinquents, get them out of there! Deny disobedient children the right to destroy the educational environment of YOUR children. You don't need a police officer to kick a kid out of school; I'm sure there are plenty of well-paid administrators over there who could handle it.
-- Posted by mark on Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 4:46 pm EST

report this comment



By the way...

Why can't prisoners be arraigned by Video Teleconference instead of driving them back and forth to White River Junction? Has anyone (like a Rutland Herald reporter, for example) posed that question to Chief Johnston? VTC arraignments are common in other states. Just think of the time, fuel, and wear and tear on cruisers that could be saved.

And as for the proposed "school resource officer" for Springfield High School --- NO, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 12:17 pm EST

report this comment



Mark has hit the nail on the head! It's time to use the power of the ballot box to stop this insanity now and return fiscal responsibility and accountability to our government. We cannot afford to pay higher and higher taxes for virtually no value-added.

VOTE NO ON ANY BUDGET INCREASE -- TOWN OR SCHOOL BUDGET!

FREEZE ALL BUDGETS AT THE 2008 LEVEL.

REQUIRE GOVERNMENT MANAGERS, SUPERINTENDANTS, DEPARTMENT HEADS, ETC., TO PERFORM THEIR JOBS WITH REAL FISCAL PRUDENCE.

Those members of the voting electorate who have received a pay raise within the past year or two may go ahead and authorize this nonsense, but the rest (probably about 98% of voters) should DEMAND A HALT TO THIS RUNAWAY SPENDING!

Desperate times require desparate measures, and so it is that out of economic desperation Springfield has saddled itself with a prison, a vocational center, a recreation center, more mental health services, grant-funded personnel positions that mature to town-funded positions, etc.

It's time for leadership to re-emerge in Springfield, a town that once sent Governors and true leaders to state government (unlike the Emmons and Martins, etc.).

I think we have learned from over 30 years of economic malaise in Springfield that government is not the answer and has only hung one albatross after another around the town's neck. Private industry and commerce must re-emerge as the engine that drives the town and our town fathers, state and federal elected officials and agencies should be working collaboratively with Springfield to help secure such opportunities. Let's just hope that prospective businesses can overlook that nice prison that the state favored us with!

The course of the town's decline can be reversed, but it will take the resolve of the town's voters to demand it.

VOTE NO ON ANY BUDGET INCREASES IN 2009!

And while you're at it, write Congress and demand that they freeze their pay at 2008 levels and return their undeserved $4,700 raise!
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 12:05 pm EST

report this comment



Say no to Springfield's Police State.

Note this from the article:

"The 20 percent increase is largely due to the cost of maintaining the new police station on Clinton Street and a new salary system the select board adopted last year, which gives longtime employees who have reached the top of their pay grade an extra two grades for merit. All town employees receive a cost-of-living increase,"

We gave them the new building they told us they needed and their thanks is to steal more of our tax money to maintain it? You all glad you voted for that? Weren't we told that the new building would SAVE us money?

New pay grades and cost of living increases? Wow! The people funding these increases -- overburdened taxpayers -- don't get the same benefit. We live in a decimated town where we are lucky to have a job, never mind getting a pay raise. (Raise your hand if you can even remember your last pay raise!)

So, welcome to Policefield...formerly Springfield. If you ever wonder what the future of VT looks like, with it's downward economy, increasingly intrusive government, expanding police powers, take a little trip to Springfield.

(But as a courtesy: Beware the nonsensical speed trap by the Blue Canoe, if you're coming from that way.)

I will vote a firm NO to the town budget. I encourage others to do likewise. It's time return to the government of our forefathers. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

NOT government OVER the people, which is the current situation in Springfield.
-- Posted by mark on Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 11:10 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout