TOWN OF MONTVILLE

September 2015

Final Report

Montville Law Enforcement Feasibility Committee

Contents

Section Page

Executive Summary 1 Review and Interview 2,3 Organizational Charts 4, 5 Summary Advantages/Disadvantages Analysis 6

Appendix A – Analysis Advantages/Disadvantages 7, 8, 9, 10 B – Cost Assumptions Resident State Trooper 11, 12, 13 C – Cost Assumptions Independent Police Force 14, 15, 16 D – Staffing Proposal 17 E – Town Council Charge 18 F – Section C408 Town Charter 19

Montville Law Enforcement Feasibility Committee Executive Summary

The Town Council authorized the formation of the Montville Law Enforcement Feasibility Committee on May 12, 2014. This authorization was memorialized in Town Council Resolution #2014-37. The Resolution, referred to in this report as the “Committee Charge,” is attached in Appendix “E”. The Committee started its work in September 2014 and completed this report in August 2015. The first act of the Committee was to establish as its guiding principal that: The safety of the general public and the police officers are the primary concerns and are to be given top priority relative to other factors that may impact on the study. The Committee reviewed each item in the Charge:

• Section C408 Public Safety Commission Montville Town Charter (Appendix “ F”) • Administration as it applies to organizational structure • Organizational development and staffing • Cost assessment • Dispatch and communications • Comparable Towns • Department policies and procedures • Overseeing authority • The advantages and disadvantages of the Connecticut State Police Resident Trooper program • The advantages and disadvantages of a statutorily recognized, organized municipal Police

Department under the control of a Chief of Police The Committee has completed its obligations, as set forth in the Charge. The final report contains a summary of the reports, documents and data that were reviewed and the interviews that were conducted. In response to the further request of Town Council Chairman Joseph Jaskiewicz that the Committee present its recommendation on this issue. The Committee hereby unanimously recommends the establishment of a statutorily recognized organized Police Department managed by a qualified Chief of Police. The Committee has come to this decision based on diligent research, review of pertinent data and the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each form of law enforcement operations. The projected comparable budgets for retention of the existing Resident State Trooper (RST) program and the formation of an Independent Police Force (IPF) are shown in Appendices “B” and “C”. The members of the Committee wish to express their appreciation to all of the individuals who provided input and assistance leading to the preparation of this report.

1

Review and Interview Studies and Reports The Committee reviewed previous studies that had been conducted. The studies are listed below:

• Town of Montville Independent Police Department Proposal, December 1999, Public Safety Commission

• Comparison Study of the Projected Cost of a Municipal Police Department for the Town of Montville, January 26, 2000, initiated by Mayor Beetham

• Connecticut Police Chief’s Association-Police Services, Report to the Town of Montville, 2008, Chiefs Strillacci, Palmer and Fuchs

• The Final Report of a Public Safety Plan for the Town of Montville, Connecticut, September 2012, Almont Associates

• Section C408 Public Safety of the Montville Town Charter (Appendix F) • Calls for service reports (Chart 1)

Interviews The Committee interviewed and/or solicited input from the following public safety professionals:

• Chief of Police Stewart, Stonington, CT • Chief of Police Pendelton, Waterford, CT • Chief of Police Fuchs, Redding, CT • Major Darcy, CT State Police • Lieutenant Thomas, CT State Police • Sergeant Smith, Resident Trooper • Sergeant Harbeck, Resident Trooper • Lieutenant Bunnell, Montville Constabulary • The Montville Union Executive Committee

Summary Three of the four above-referenced studies recommended conversion to an (IPF). The sole exception was the Comparison Study completed in 2000. The Committee thoroughly reviewed the relevant reports. The three Chiefs of Police interviewed recommended the formation of an (IPF) based on the Town’s population, geographic size and command structure. Major Darcy and Lt. Thomas, C.S.P indicated that their department would offer assistance to the Town no matter what direction the Town chose. The Resident State Trooper and members of the Town Constabulary provided detailed insight into the day to day operations and staffing requirements. The Committee reviewed all available comparable documentation including data provided by the Town’s force. Based on all information gathered, the Committee analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of creating an (IPF). (See Appendix “A”) Cost assumptions and budget projections are shown in (Appendices “B” and “C”). For purposes of comparison, the budgets reflect two alternative assumptions. The first assumes continued use of the RST program through 2018 and includes this fiscal year’s mandatory increase in the Trooper’s salary. The Town

2

is now required to pay 85% of the Trooper’s salary (up from 70% ) and 100% of fringe benefits. The second budget assumes the hiring of a Chief of Police midway through FY 2016 and terminating the Resident State Trooper contract on June 30, 2016. The recommended staffing levels for an IPF are shown in Appendix “D”. The one time capital expenditures associated with remaining with the RST Program and transitioning to an IPF, respectively, are identified as follows, with projected costs:

• Resident State Trooper $180,000* Radios • Independent Police $60,000** Vehicle Retention Area

*Required by year ending 2016 **Assumes construction of an impound lot at Public Safety facility with storage for six vehicles, including fencing, lighting and security monitoring cameras. Although other locations were considered (i.e. the State DOT building on Route 32), it was determined that no cost savings would be realized by locating the vehicle retention area elsewhere. The estimated construction cost for the impound lot is approximately $10,000 per vehicle space. Embedded in the cost estimate is $30,000 for an oil water separator structure which is required by State and local water quality regulations. (The cost of installation at the DOT property may be slightly higher because the structure must be connected to the State drainage system.)

3

Organizational Chart Resident State Trooper and Montville Force

Mayor – Acting as Chief of Police

Administration Operational

Lieutenant Resident Trooper

Commanding Officer

CSP Troop E

Patrol Sergeant Patrol Sergeant Patrol Sergeant Patrol Sergeant

Officer (3)

Detectives (2)

Clerical

Police Dispatching Services

Patrol Sergeant

P/T Clerical

Officer (3) Officer (3) Officer (3) Officer (3)

*

* Refer to Appendix F

4

Organizational Chart Independent Police Department

Chief of Police

Executive Officer

Administrative Assistant

P/T Secretary

Patrol Sergeant

Officer (3)

Dispatch Staff

Detective Sergeant

Detective

Records Clerk

P/T Clerical

Detective

Patrol Sergeant

Officer (3)

Patrol Sergeant

Officer (3)

Patrol Sergeant

Officer (3)

Patrol Sergeant

Officer (3)

Patrol Sergeant

Officer (3)

5

Analysis of Advantages/Disadvantages of the Resident State Trooper Program versus an Independent Police Force (IPF)

1. Leadership

- The RST contract does not promote continuity of leadership by way of the assigned Resident Trooper, whereas the IPF model places a high value on strong, stable leadership in the form of a Police Chief selected through a rigorous hiring process.

- Community involvement and the establishment of strong communications and organizational structures may be enhanced through the formation of an effective and efficiently operated IPF.

2. Facilities

- The Public Safety Building is professionally designed to support an IPF. Under the RST Program, the building is underutilized whereas the formation of an IPF would optimize the Town’s investment in this facility.

3. Operations

- An IPF would provide for consistent implementation of policies and a clear chain of command. The RST Program contractually imposes policies on the Town of Montville, while at the same time, the Montville Police Force has its own set of policies. The overlapping and sometimes inconsistent policies create uncertainty and potential for unnecessary liability.

4. Budget Impact

- The RST Program provides Montville with full access to and use of Connecticut State Police assets. The services provided by the State Police would be scaled down significantly in the event of a transition to an IPF. However, the provision of certain State Police support services, such as Major Crimes Squad, are not dependent upon continuing with the RST contract.

- An IPF is required to provide its own detention cells, impound lot, and police dispatch (presently, the Town’s dispatch services are provided for only fire and medical calls.)

- Costs anticipated by the transition to an IPF are partially offset by the elimination of multiple radios needed in connection with the RST Program. (State Police radio upgrade would no longer be required by the end of 2016, at a cost savings of $180,000.)

5. Community Impact

- Availability of grant funding is minimal under the current RST Program. As an IPF, Montville would be eligible for Federal and State grants, significantly increasing potential funding available outside of that obtained through local taxes, as compared to what is available when participating in the RST Program.

- A Police Chief will establish long term relationships with the community and residents.

6

Appendices

Analysis of Advantages/Disadvantages of the Resident State Trooper Program versus an Independent Police Force Appendix A

Category Leadership

Resident State Trooper Independent Police Force Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages RST serves Chief of Police functions for all patrol/police operations

Mayor as “Chief of Police, subject to election; untrained in police procedures and administration

Force would be led by a professional Chief of Police not subject to election

Town incurs cost of employment search

Includes all necessary frontline supervision; Troop supervisors & command staff (24/7)

Significant RST turnover due to reassignment, retirement, etc. Impacts continuity of leadership, disruptive to long term planning, requires continuous adaptation to changing leadership styles and philosophies

A Chief of Police would establish lines of communication internally through the chain of command and externally with other police departments

Employment contracts have inherent risks

Town is not required to conduct employment search to replace RST

Town may or may not have input on RST assignment.

Town controls hiring of Chief and second in command

Town incurs costs of required training, evaluation and replacement

Uncertainty about future

cost and availability of RST program. Potential increase to 100% of RST Salary and 100 % Fringe Benefits

Would foster consistent leadership throughout the chain of command based on established policies and procedures

Contract with Chief of

Police would permit budget stability with respect to salary and benefits. This salary exempt position would not receive overtime pay

Chief of Police would be

eligible to join professional organizations; network with other Chiefs and apply information gained to maintain a current and modern Department

7

Leadership Continued

Resident State Trooper Independent Police Force Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Per CGS 20-3 State police

would continue to provide resources and assistance at no cost to the Town

Facilities

Resident State Trooper Independent Police Force Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Impound lot provided Underutilization of Town

Public Safety Building Investment in Town Public Safety Building optimized

Cost associated with activation of holding cell areas and evidence room/evidence transport

Evidence held at Troop E Patrol time lost due to

wait time for prisoner processing at Troop E

Ease of public access to police facility

Cost associated with manning booking/cell area

Prisoners held and monitored at Troop E

Reduction in patrol time loss due to on site booking

Operations

Resident State Trooper Independent Police Force Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Department can rely on State Troopers to augment sworn officers

Town officers are unable to access certain Montville information from patrol cars

Increased accuracy of federal crime reporting system. Information will be used to identify problem areas, facilitate better resource management and strengthen grant applications

Numerous administrative duties are performed by State Police including dispatch, FOI requests, prisoner supervision, evidence custody and vehicle impound

Prohibition on use of canine units which are not State approved

Eliminates State restriction on canine use

State will not provide Troopers to augment sworn officers for routine calls

Appendix A

8

Operations Continued

Resident State Trooper Independent Police Force Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Conflicting State and

Town policies governing police conduct

Consistent policies may increase morale within the Department

Town department will have to assume administrative duties and supervision responsibilities for holding cells, evidence and vehicle impound lot

The Town is responsible for 85% of the RST salary plus 100 % Fringe Benefits and Overtime Salary may increase to 100 %

Continuity of Police Chief would provide consistent leadership and chain of command which would be more responsive to specific Town needs

Must create all policies and procedures for independent police force

Availability of State Police K-9 units

Possible budget increase. Budget Impact

Resident State Trooper Independent Police Force Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Staffing of sworn officers remains the same

Cost of RST contract plus overtime

Opportunities to apply for additional grant funding

Chief of Police salary and benefits

Does not increase the number of administrative positions necessary for police operations

RST program precludes Town from seeking certain grant funding

Cost to create independent police force likely to increase in the future – doing it now when implementation can be accomplished in a coordinated and phased process would reduce budget impact

Required one time capital expenditures (see capital budget)

Unpredictable and

uncontrollable future increases in RST program

Elimination of RST salary and overtime

Collect licenses for IMC system costs

Given States fiscal outlook, future availability of RST program unpredictable

Stabilizes budget projections

Salary and benefits for two additional FTE dispatchers

Additional cost incurred for State mandated radio system upgrade ($180,000)

Salary and benefits for two additional officers

Appendix A

9

Community Impact

Resident State Trooper Independent Police Force Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages RST is independent of Town political influence

RST assignment is not a Town decision

Grants available to an IPF directly benefit the community in potential tax savings

The majority of Town

residents do not know who the RST is

The community would know who the Police Chief is

The RST may not be fully

invested in the local community

The position of Chief will be accountable to the public for department policies and budget

The Police Chief can establish relationships with community leaders and residents

Appendix A

10

Actu

alAc

tual

Budg

etBu

dget

Budg

etBu

dget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Polic

e Pr

otec

tion

Chie

f of P

olic

e0

00

00

0Li

eute

nant

68,5

3669

,621

71,0

1472

,434

Resid

ent T

roop

er12

3,36

113

3,41

013

8,00

017

5,00

017

5,00

017

5,00

0Re

s. T

roop

er O

vert

ime

16,6

7021

,323

20,0

0020

,000

20,0

0020

,000

Polic

e Sa

larie

s1,

387,

813

1,42

1,43

31,

429,

110

1,70

0,00

01,

835,

412

1,87

2,12

1To

tal P

olic

e Sa

larie

s1,

527,

844

1,57

6,16

61,

655,

646

1,96

4,62

12,

101,

426

2,13

9,55

5

Ove

rtim

e25

4,29

532

3,28

828

0,00

025

0,00

020

0,00

020

0,00

0O

vert

ime-

Gran

ts45

,528

63,7

6824

,000

50,0

0024

,000

24,0

00Sp

ecia

l Eve

nts

17,1

6713

,666

12,0

0012

,360

12,0

0012

,000

Tota

l Off

icer

s Pay

1,84

4,83

41,

976,

888

1,97

1,64

62,

276,

981

2,33

7,42

62,

375,

555

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Sala

ries

Disp

atch

Ser

vice

s0

00

00

0Se

cret

ary

Sala

ry41

,995

42,1

6044

,111

45,2

1446

,118

47,0

40PT

Sec

reta

ry0

00

15,6

0015

,912

16,2

30PT

Cle

rical

05,

508

11,8

1011

,810

15,9

1216

,230

Reco

rds C

lerk

00

00

00

Tota

l Adm

in. S

alar

ies

41,9

9547

,668

55,9

2172

,624

77,9

4279

,501

Tota

l Sal

arie

s1,

886,

829

2,02

4,55

62,

027,

567

2,34

9,60

52,

415,

368

2,45

5,05

5

Cost

Ass

umpt

ions

for R

esid

ent S

tate

Tro

oper

- App

endi

x B

11

Actu

alAc

tual

Budg

etBu

dget

Budg

etBu

dget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Oth

er C

osts

Copy

Sup

plie

s38

450

050

060

070

080

0Tr

aini

ng/C

onfe

renc

es22

,441

24,3

9922

,000

25,0

0026

,000

27,0

00U

nifo

rms

18,9

4118

,941

16,0

0021

,000

32,0

0033

,600

Misc

. Sup

plie

s1,

149

1,89

41,

200

1,32

01,

452

1,59

7Eq

uip.

Mai

n. &

Rep

air

1,41

83,

419

4,50

05,

000

5,50

06,

050

Refe

renc

e M

ater

ials

1,10

41,

591

1,20

01,

200

2,00

02,

200

Law

Enf

orcm

ent P

rog.

753

400

800

800

880

968

Radi

o Re

pairs

1,53

41,

121

2,00

03,

000

3,30

03,

630

Wea

pons

& A

mm

o5,

185

8,56

18,

000

10,0

0011

,000

12,1

00Sa

fety

Equ

ip.

2,55

380

21,

000

2,00

02,

200

2,42

0Ve

hicl

e Su

pplie

s1,

514

180

1,00

01,

000

1,10

01,

210

Phys

ical

s1,

800

799

2,00

04,

000

4,40

04,

840

Phot

o Su

pplie

s83

91,

800

1,89

01,

985

2,08

4Ce

llula

r Pho

ne1,

581

2,66

12,

700

3,00

03,

300

3,63

0Bo

at M

aint

.0

266

500

500

550

605

Equi

pmen

t8,

909

13,0

8318

,000

18,0

0019

,800

21,7

80Eq

uip.

-Gra

nt F

undi

ng0

050

050

055

060

5To

tal O

ther

Cos

ts69

,266

79,4

5683

,700

98,8

1011

6,71

712

5,11

9

Cost

Ass

umpt

ions

for R

esid

ent S

tate

Tro

oper

- App

endi

x B

C

ontin

ued

12

Actu

alAc

tual

Budg

etBu

dget

Budg

etBu

dget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Publ

ic S

afet

y Bu

ildin

gEl

ectr

icity

25,8

5155

,651

30,0

0031

,500

33,0

7534

,729

Tele

phon

e30

,704

16,3

4520

,000

21,0

0022

,050

23,1

53Bu

ildin

g M

aint

.1,

673

6,24

73,

000

3,15

03,

308

3,47

3N

atur

al G

as0

10,1

1620

,000

21,0

0022

,050

23,1

53W

ater

& S

ewer

Chg

.1,

405

2,31

51,

500

1,57

51,

654

1,73

6Le

ase

Of C

opie

r2,

437

3,05

43,

500

3,50

03,

500

3,50

0M

isc. S

uppl

ies

2,29

53,

112

1,00

01,

050

1,10

31,

158

Equi

p. M

aint

. & R

epai

r0

200

500

525

551

579

Mai

nt-P

olic

e Co

mp.

2,87

33,

000

14,0

0014

,000

14,0

0014

,000

Tota

l Bui

ldin

g Ex

p.67

,238

100,

040

93,5

0097

,300

101,

290

105,

480

Bene

fit C

osts

Polic

e Pe

nsio

n28

3,85

030

9,03

730

7,59

434

0,61

235

0,50

135

7,51

1M

edic

al In

s.19

4,30

419

4,30

421

9,64

823

2,32

027

5,74

328

1,25

8W

orke

rs C

omp

57,6

4461

,704

61,6

9671

,102

73,2

7274

,738

FICA

133,

630

143,

041

143,

022

164,

827

169,

858

173,

255

Life

Insu

ranc

e5,

939

6,35

76,

357

7,32

67,

549

8,30

4To

tal B

enef

its67

5,37

671

4,44

573

8,31

681

6,18

787

6,92

389

5,06

6

Tota

l Exp

ense

s2,

698,

700

2,91

8,49

72,

943,

083

3,36

1,90

23,

510,

298

3,58

0,71

9

Cost

Ass

umpt

ions

for R

esid

ent S

tate

Tro

oper

- App

endi

x B

C

ontin

ued

13

Actu

alAc

tual

Budg

etBu

dget

Budg

etBu

dget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Polic

e Pr

otec

tion

Chie

f of P

olic

e0

00

50,0

0010

0,00

010

2,00

0Li

eute

nant

68,5

3669

,621

71,0

1472

,434

Resid

ent T

roop

er12

3,36

113

3,41

013

8,00

017

5,00

00

0Re

s. T

roop

er O

vert

ime

16,6

7021

,323

20,0

0020

,000

00

Polic

e Sa

larie

s1,

387,

813

1,42

1,43

31,

429,

110

1,70

0,00

01,

835,

412

1,87

2,12

1To

tal P

olic

e Sa

larie

s1,

527,

844

1,57

6,16

61,

655,

646

2,01

4,62

12,

006,

426

2,04

6,55

5

Ove

rtim

e25

4,29

532

3,28

828

0,00

025

0,00

020

0,00

020

0,00

0O

vert

ime-

Gran

ts45

,528

63,7

6824

,000

50,0

0024

,000

24,0

00Sp

ecia

l Eve

nts

17,1

6713

,666

12,0

0012

,360

12,0

0012

,000

Tota

l Off

icer

s Pay

1,84

4,83

41,

976,

888

1,97

1,64

62,

326,

981

2,24

2,42

62,

282,

555

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Sala

ries

Disp

atch

Ser

vice

s0

00

125,

000

250,

000

250,

000

Secr

etar

y Sa

lary

41,9

9542

,160

44,1

1145

,214

50,0

0051

,000

PT S

ecre

tary

00

015

,600

15,9

1216

,230

PT C

leric

al0

5,50

811

,810

11,8

1015

,912

16,2

30Re

cord

s Cle

rk0

00

29,2

5029

,835

30,4

32To

tal A

dmin

. Sal

arie

s41

,995

47,6

6855

,921

226,

874

361,

659

363,

892

Tota

l Sal

arie

s1,

886,

829

2,02

4,55

62,

027,

567

2,55

3,85

52,

604,

085

2,64

6,44

6

Cost

Ass

umpt

ions

for I

ndep

ende

nt P

olic

e Fo

rce-

App

endi

x C

14

Actu

alAc

tual

Budg

etBu

dget

Budg

etBu

dget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Oth

er C

osts

Copy

Sup

plie

s38

450

050

060

070

080

0Tr

aini

ng/C

onfe

renc

es22

,441

24,3

9922

,000

25,0

0026

,000

27,0

00U

nifo

rms

18,9

4118

,941

16,0

0021

,000

32,0

0033

,600

Misc

. Sup

plie

s1,

149

1,89

41,

200

1,32

01,

452

1,59

7Eq

uip.

Mai

n. &

Rep

air

1,41

83,

419

4,50

05,

000

5,50

06,

050

Refe

renc

e M

ater

ials

1,10

41,

591

1,20

01,

200

2,00

02,

200

Law

Enf

orcm

ent P

rog.

753

400

800

800

880

968

Radi

o Re

pairs

1,53

41,

121

2,00

03,

000

3,30

03,

630

Wea

pons

& A

mm

o5,

185

8,56

18,

000

10,0

0011

,000

12,1

00Sa

fety

Equ

ip.

2,55

380

21,

000

2,00

02,

200

2,42

0Ve

hicl

e Su

pplie

s1,

514

180

1,00

01,

000

1,10

01,

210

Phys

ical

s1,

800

799

2,00

04,

000

4,40

04,

840

Phot

o Su

pplie

s83

91,

800

1,89

01,

985

2,08

4Ce

llula

r Pho

ne1,

581

2,66

12,

700

3,00

03,

300

3,63

0Bo

at M

aint

.0

266

500

500

550

605

Equi

pmen

t8,

909

13,0

8318

,000

18,0

0019

,800

21,7

80Eq

uip.

-Gra

nt F

undi

ng0

050

050

055

060

5To

tal O

ther

Cos

ts69

,266

79,4

5683

,700

98,8

1011

6,71

712

5,11

9

Cost

Ass

umpt

ions

for I

ndep

ende

nt P

olic

e Fo

rce-

App

endi

x C

Con

tinue

d

15

Actu

alAc

tual

Budg

etBu

dget

Budg

etBu

dget

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Publ

ic S

afet

y Bu

ildin

gEl

ectr

icity

25,8

5155

,651

30,0

0031

,500

33,0

7534

,729

Tele

phon

e30

,704

16,3

4520

,000

21,0

0022

,050

23,1

53Bu

ildin

g M

aint

.1,

673

6,24

73,

000

3,15

03,

308

3,47

3N

atur

al G

as0

10,1

1620

,000

21,0

0022

,050

23,1

53W

ater

& S

ewer

Chg

.1,

405

2,31

51,

500

1,57

51,

654

1,73

6Le

ase

Of C

opie

r2,

437

3,05

43,

500

3,50

03,

500

3,50

0M

isc. S

uppl

ies

2,29

53,

112

1,00

01,

050

1,10

31,

158

Equi

p. M

aint

. & R

epai

r0

200

500

525

551

579

Mai

nt-P

olic

e Co

mp.

2,87

33,

000

14,0

0014

,000

14,0

0014

,000

Tota

l Bui

ldin

g Ex

p.67

,238

100,

040

93,5

0097

,300

101,

290

105,

480

Bene

fit C

osts

Polic

e Pe

nsio

n28

3,85

030

9,03

730

7,59

434

8,79

236

6,86

137

4,19

8M

edic

al In

s.19

4,30

419

4,30

421

9,64

823

2,32

027

5,74

328

1,25

8W

orke

rs C

omp

57,6

4461

,704

61,6

9677

,842

85,9

3587

,654

FICA

133,

630

143,

041

143,

022

180,

452

199,

213

203,

197

Life

Insu

ranc

e5,

939

6,35

76,

357

8,02

08,

854

9,73

9To

tal B

enef

its67

5,37

671

4,44

573

8,31

684

7,42

793

6,60

595

6,04

5

Tota

l Exp

ense

s2,

698,

700

2,91

8,49

72,

943,

083

3,59

7,39

23,

758,

696

3,83

3,09

0

Cost

Ass

umpt

ions

for I

ndep

ende

nt P

olic

e Fo

rce-

App

endi

x C

Con

tinue

d

16

Independent Police Force Staffing Proposal Appendix D

Position Existing 2016 2017 Resident Trooper 1.00 1.00 0.00 Chief of Police 0.00 0.50 1.00 Lieutenant 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sergeants 5.00 5.00 6.00 Total Patrol Staff 15.00 18.00 18.00 Detective Sergeant 0.0 1.00 1.00 Detectives 2.00 2.00 2.00 Total 24.00 28.50 29.00

Note: Staffing includes either RST or Chief IPF with one overlap in year 2016

17

Appendix E

Montville Law Enforcement Feasibility Committee

Town Charge Resolution # 2014-37 Resolution #2014-37. THE TOWN OF MONTVILLE HEREBY RESOLVES to form an ad-hoc committee known as the Montville Law Enforcement Feasibility Committee. It shall be the responsibility of the Committee to investigate, document and report its finding to the Montville Town Council any and all advantages and/or disadvantages to the Town of Montville transitioning from the current Constabulary under the Connecticut State Police - Resident Trooper Program to a statutorily recognized organized Police Department with a Chief of Police. This Committee will consist of seven (7) members and the make-up will be as follows: one (1) member from the Town Council, one (1) member from the Public Safety Commission, and five (5) members at large. This Committee will report its findings in writing to the Town Council in six (6) month after their first meeting. Identifiable Topics to Report are current language of the Montville Town Charter Section 408. Public Safety Commission and all applicable town ordinances; Administration as it applies to agency organizational structure (i.e. reports and records); Organizational developments (i.e. staffing, support staff); Cost assessments (i.e. adding necessary divisions); Dispatch and Communication needs (i.e. duties and responsibilities, staffing); comparable towns; department policy and procedure changes and overseeing authority.

18

Appendix F

19