Yorktown Board Proposes Disbanding Police K-9 Unit

[JohnnyOV 2]

Please Contact Susan Siegel and express your concern over this matter. The K-9 unit is an invaluable tool that is utilized on a daily basis. The $4000 a year tag is for both dogs, not per dog. The K-9 Unit needs everyone's voice right now to stay afloat.

The Yorktown Police Department Police Benevolent Association would like to inform all town residents and business owners that Supervisor Siegel has the intention of eliminating the department's K9 Unit as of January 1^st, 2011. The YPD has continuously had a successful K9 unit since 1975.

The department currently has two K9 handlers, Officers Swart and Foley, and their respective K9 partners, "Caesar" and "Moose". The dogs and their police officer handlers have recently achieved the following:

· Located a missing 4 year old child unharmed

· Located a suicidal subject, after an extensive track over miles of rough terrain, preventing him from injuring himself

· Located a large quantity of cocaine and intercepted a dangerous drug dealer, who was fleeing the scene after stabbing his victim

· Located a knife used in a stabbing, which occurred as a result of an argument between two individuals. This knife was later successfully used as evidence to convict the suspect of his crime.

· Additionally, the K9 Unit has investigated numerous area burglaries; tracked and captured assault and larceny suspects; located heroin, crack, cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy, amphetamines, and other illegal drugs, removing them from the streets

These results could not have been possible without more than 1,000 hours of extensive training that each dog and their handlers have received. Both dogs are certified by New York State and other K9 certifying agencies in the following:

· Tracking - missing children, persons and suspects

· Article Searches - finding evidence or lost items

· Location Searches - open and wooded areas, commercial buildings and residential structures

· Suspect Apprehension – capturing fleeing felons, resulting in less risk to both the general public and the involved police officers

· Narcotic Detection - finding drugs "on the streets" that are harming and killing our children here in Yorktown

Although these dogs are trained and cared for by Officers Swart and Foley, they are still town property and not the officers' personal pets. The dogs and their associated equipment were initially purchased through a NY State grant with no cost to the town. The annual cost for the dogs' food and vet bills totals only $4000, which is less than ½ of 1% of the department's annual budget. Additionally, department manpower levels are never sacrificed by the K9 Unit. The two officers patrol Yorktown with their K9 partners like every other Yorktown police officer.

The cost of saving a human life or

locating a missing child is priceless!

If you would like to support your police department's K9 Unit, please call or e-mail the elected Yorktown Town Board members by Friday November 12, 2010 to express your thoughts on keeping this invaluable asset.

Supervisor Siegel: 914-962-5722 ext. 271

supervisor@yorktownny.org

Councilman Bianco: 914-962-5722 ext. 418

nicgin245@aol.com

Councilman Martorano: 347-268-6453

lohillss2@aol.com

Councilman Murphy: 914-557-0402

tmurphy@yorktownny.org

Councilman Patel: 914-962-5722 ext. 419

vishnuv@optonline.net

Thank you in advance for your supportive efforts:

Yorktown PBA and K9's Caesar & Moose

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

I agree but the lohud article states:

"The unit’s use has plummeted in recent years, she said, from 94 calls in 2007 to 42 in 2008, 26 in 2009 and 13 through August."

http://yorktown.lohudblogs.com/2010/11/10/siegels-plan-to-cut-yorktowns-k9-unit-draws-fire-from-pba/

[ajsbear 11]

My sons father in law is a K9 officer in Georgia. He tells my the dog is his partner, his dog is an asset to his ability to patrol and knows the dog will be at his side anytime he gets out of the car.

[PEMO3 523]

Something wrong with this picture. Each dog costs the town $2000 per year. If you take into account the dog working 8 hours a day with the officer and even back out 15 days a year for vacation days, the dog would cost the town a total of $1 per hour. Not bad for a partner who can track a suspect through the wood, locate a lost child and search a package without opening it.

[helicopper 1,050]

I agree but the lohud article states:

"The unit's use has plummeted in recent years, she said, from 94 calls in 2007 to 42 in 2008, 26 in 2009 and 13 through August."

http://yorktown.lohu...-fire-from-pba/

What's your point? Fortunately four year olds don't get lost every day.

Shall we use that argument against fire apparatus or other specialized resources? The point is the Town Board is using a valuable and unique police resource as a pawn in a budget battle.

[NWFDMedic 58]

These towns have got to cut somewhere and it stinks that public safety items are getting cut, but pretty much every line item is feeling it this year. Some of these lesser used resources might be better funded on the county level where the cost and resources can be shared.

[Bnechis 3,961]

These towns have got to cut somewhere and it stinks that public safety items are getting cut, but pretty much every line item is feeling it this year. Some of these lesser used resources might be better funded on the county level where the cost and resources can be shared.

1st. the counties are all cutting services as well

2nd. Having the counties handle the costs of just specialized survices, does not reduce the cost to taxpayers, it just changes which bill it comes from.

3rd. At some point the levels of service will be cut to the point that we will be forced to consolidate. Some of us have been advocating to due it before we get to those levels. Its going to happen, the issue is how much will we lose before everyone agrees to it.

[helicopper 1,050]

1st. the counties are all cutting services as well

2nd. Having the counties handle the costs of just specialized survices, does not reduce the cost to taxpayers, it just changes which bill it comes from.

3rd. At some point the levels of service will be cut to the point that we will be forced to consolidate. Some of us have been advocating to due it before we get to those levels. Its going to happen, the issue is how much will we lose before everyone agrees to it.

Barry, as shocking as you'll find this, I respectfully disagree. A regional approach to specialized services does, indeed, reduce the cost to individual taxpayers because that cost is now borne by a larger pool of them. Look at aviation for example (don't know why I picked that but it'll work), there is no single jurisdiction in the county that could afford and/or justify having their own helicopter but because of the regional (countywide) approach, EVERY jurisdiction in the County does have one available to it.

If the cost for something is $1,000,000 and you only have 1000 people paying for it, the cost is $1,000 for EACH. If you spread that out over a tax base of 10,000 that cost drops to just $100. That is a BIG difference to the individual taxpayer!

The same is true of other specialized resources and services but because we hang on to the notion of home-rule and maintaining individual fiefdoms instead of regional approaches to these things we have some jurisdictions with lots of resources and others with nearly none at all.

With regard to your third point, how many departments will continue to falter and provide substandard services instead of embracing the idea of consolidation and moving forward with it?

[NWFDMedic 58]

1st. the counties are all cutting services as well

2nd. Having the counties handle the costs of just specialized survices, does not reduce the cost to taxpayers, it just changes which bill it comes from.

3rd. At some point the levels of service will be cut to the point that we will be forced to consolidate. Some of us have been advocating to due it before we get to those levels. Its going to happen, the issue is how much will we lose before everyone agrees to it.

You bring up some good points here. Although I mentioned that the service could be provided through the county, I didn't necessarily mean that a county team was necessary. Instead, neighboring jurisdictions could share the costs of lesser used resources. We started doing this in Orange County in the fire service with some of the lesser used services. Maybe Yorktown should be the department that has the K9 team and a neighboring jurisdiction could provide a SWAT team, a third jurisdiction could provide a drug task force (excuse me for not being up to date on law enforcement teams, I'm just using these teams as examples). On the fire service end, district A might absorb the cost for a rope rescue team while district B absorbs the cost of maintaining an ice rescue team. In the event that either district A or B requires the resource, they share them.

[jr51070 7]

OK, here is what will happen, and should happen, if they want to save $4000 measley dollars, everytime an outside agency has to bring in a K9, charge them, they will reach that $4000 real quick. What is that saying about pennies and pounds and being foolish? It kills me how politicians find such measley expenses to cut but then the big ones, sometime the easiest to cut or eliminate, never get looked at.

[JohnnyOV 2]

OK, here is what will happen, and should happen, if they want to save $4000 measley dollars, everytime an outside agency has to bring in a K9, charge them, they will reach that $4000 real quick. What is that saying about pennies and pounds and being foolish? It kills me how politicians find such measley expenses to cut but then the big ones, sometime the easiest to cut or eliminate, never get looked at.

Apparently, word on the street is that Mrs Seigel will be taking a pay raise over the next year... We'll be looking into this

[Bnechis 3,961]

Barry, as shocking as you'll find this, I respectfully disagree. A regional approach to specialized services does, indeed, reduce the cost to individual taxpayers because that cost is now borne by a larger pool of them.

My point (which was clear in my head...but I think it never got typed in) was that many depts are cutting basic services and a regional approach is needed on all services not just on special ones. Saving on the special services by using a larger pool is a good idea, but its such a small cost percentage wise on the total service delivery.

Look at aviation for example (don't know why I picked that but it'll work), there is no single jurisdiction in the county that could afford and/or justify having their own helicopter but because of the regional (countywide) approach, EVERY jurisdiction in the County does have one available to it.

Since aviation costs more than many of the smaller depts total budget, its a great example. But as usefull as aviation is, a K-9 unit is much more likely to be needed and used in many jurisdictions multiple times during a tour (or at least a week). The numbers needed to be able to respond within a reasonable time would require many units located around the county.

If the cost for something is $1,000,000 and you only have 1000 people paying for it, the cost is $1,000 for EACH. If you spread that out over a tax base of 10,000 that cost drops to just $100. That is a BIG difference to the individual taxpayer!

Agreed. Now lets consider the $2,000 per K-9 unit. NRPD is also uses 2 K-9 units (I'll assume the costs are similar) with about a $30m budget if we had the county provide the service it would only ssave 0.013% of our budget. The savings of spreading it out only work if you can "share" the service. If the county would need to add dozens of k-9 units to replace the dozens by locals, it just shifts the costs. The cost savings the tax payers want and the politicians are giving make this useless. In addition we would need the county to respond multiple times per week and the level of coordination and training (of our officers in working with the unit) would be rreduced

With regard to your third point, how many departments will continue to falter and provide substandard services instead of embracing the idea of consolidation and moving forward with it?

I do not know how many PD's are in this boat (but looks like many are).....90% of the FD's in Westchester are already provide substandard services. The standards are OSHA, NFPA & ISO and we have depts that can not put enough trained ff's on scine to legally enter a burning building. These same depts are being told to cut back. I see very few embracing consolidation, just complaining about not having the resources or hiding the facts and hoping no one will notice.

[INIT915 1,119]

Does Yorktown just anticipate relying on WCPD and NYSP dogs?

[jr51070 7]

Apparently, word on the street is that Mrs Seigel will be taking a pay raise over the next year... We'll be looking into this

And I would not doubt it, politicians are infamous for this, make cuts and sacrifices, but exempt themselves.

[LT1296 3]

I work in a smaller Town/Village in Northern Westchester which has a long history of armed robberies, stabbings, shootings, and a large drug problem. It is also a large commercial and industral area. This is an ideal location for K9 unit if not 2, but the mentality of calling the county or SP is prevelant. On NUMEROUS occasions we have requested a K9 for tracking, drugs, and article searches. But after calling county and state police, no one is available. Yorktown PD is close to us and they make every attempt to send a K9 unit and have helped us many times. The YPD K9 officers are professional and are great at their job, they they make a lot of sacrafices to avoid costing the Town and taxpayers money.

If there is a request for a K9 it almost always is necessary and time sensitive. I dont understand how a representitive of the Town of Yorktown taxpayers could plan of taking away a valuble and extremely cost effective unit which protects both the taxpayers and their loved ones along with Police Officers.

PS; I dont know of any Police Officer that could track a violent, drugged out, felon just by their smell for miles. I could be wrong though........... Good Luck to YPD K9

[EVACREEVESBOY 0]

Chris, You are 100% correct in consolidation or a regional approach to emergency services, but we can't paint with a broad brush. We have been utilizing joint resources for a while, just to name a few (and this is from a non-law enforcement back ground) swat teams, aviation, I'm sure investigative assets and K-9 units, as not every police department in the county has a K-9 unit the loss of one especially in the northern part of the county, would have a cascade effect that could be felt as far as Harrison. This move would not only diminish the capabilities of one jurisdiction but would effect others that would have to be called in. The ripple effect is not just the loss of the dog, but the handler and loss of that jurisdiction's patrol officer. In short this is a service (in this case) that we can't lose.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Chris, You are 100% correct in consolidation or a regional approach to emergency services, but we can't paint with a broad brush.

Why not?

This move would not only diminish the capabilities of one jurisdiction but would effect others that would have to be called in. The ripple effect is not just the loss of the dog, but the handler and loss of that jurisdiction's patrol officer. In short this is a service (in this case) that we can't lose.

From the Managment or taxpayers side...If this is so important for the other communities, why should Yorktown (or any other town for that mater) have to be the only one that is paying for it?

[EVACREEVESBOY 0]

Why not?

From the Managment or taxpayers side...If this is so important for the other communities, why should Yorktown (or any other town for that mater) have to be the only one that is paying for it? I thought for a long time how to answer this question and I keep coming back to reciprocal mutual aid.

Barry, I don't want to start a war, but each communities needs are different, so in my humble opinion a vulnerability assessment should be done on a case by case basis.

[Bnechis 3,961]

>> "Barry, I don't want to start a war, but each communities needs are different, so in my humble opinion a vulnerability assessment should be done on a case by case basis." <<

No war. Thats the excuse for home rule. If this were true, shouldn't every section of NYC have its own PD & FD? No county sheriffs dept would work. A vulnerability assessment is a great idea for determning where resources should be deployed, but from some of the statements it apears that some of the communities that rely on Yorktowns k-9 unit may actually have more need for it then Yorktown. Have they done vulnerability assessments?

>> "I thought for a long time how to answer this question and I keep coming back to reciprocal mutual aid."<<

Its not mutual if its going one way.

[helicopper 1,050]

Chris, You are 100% correct in consolidation or a regional approach to emergency services, but we can't paint with a broad brush. We have been utilizing joint resources for a while, just to name a few (and this is from a non-law enforcement back ground) swat teams, aviation, I'm sure investigative assets and K-9 units, as not every police department in the county has a K-9 unit the loss of one especially in the northern part of the county, would have a cascade effect that could be felt as far as Harrison. This move would not only diminish the capabilities of one jurisdiction but would effect others that would have to be called in. The ripple effect is not just the loss of the dog, but the handler and loss of that jurisdiction's patrol officer. In short this is a service (in this case) that we can't lose.

We have to start painting with a broad brush - have you looked at taxes around here lately? If we consolidated school districts, fire districts, police departments, EMS agencies, and other taxing districts into larger regional areas we would eventually start to see relief in taxes and achieve some improvements in our services.

How would the cascade affect be felt as far as Harrison? Cops will just have to do without the dog as they do already - even in Yorktown when one of their two is off duty.

If Yorktown cuts the dog, they don't lose the patrol officer he just keeps working without the four-legged partner.

I agree that we shouldn't be cutting the K-9 units but I don't get all of your points.

[Billy 68]

OK, here is what will happen, and should happen, if they want to save $4000 measley dollars, everytime an outside agency has to bring in a K9, charge them, they will reach that $4000 real quick. What is that saying about pennies and pounds and being foolish? It kills me how politicians find such measley expenses to cut but then the big ones, sometime the easiest to cut or eliminate, never get looked at.

Unfortunately in this case,Towns/Departments would be reluctant to use the K9 simply because they don't want to pay because of their own budget restraints......they would probably just make due without.

[Billy 68]

What's your point? Fortunately four year olds don't get lost every day.

Shall we use that argument against fire apparatus or other specialized resources? The point is the Town Board is using a valuable and unique police resource as a pawn in a budget battle.

Chris, in your professional opinion, do you think it is an option for Yorktown to go with just one K9 instead of two? Maybe another Agency could "adopt " the second K9? Cut the costs in half?

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

What exactly are the capabilities of the YPD K9 unit? Perp search, narcotics detection? Say I potentially have a person missing in the woods thrown from a rollover at 3:30AM on a Tuesday evening, will I be able to call YPD and have one of their dogs come out? How about on a Saturday?

[Just a guy 493]

The Yorktown K-9 unit is a fully trained unit. The dogs are certified in narcotics detection, suspect tracking, missing persons, etc. To cut or eliminate this unit would be a mistake. When you need a dog for a traffic stop, time is of the essence, if there is an extended delay in getting a dog to the scene, you give the perp extra time to devise a plan to lie, escape, or worse, plan an attack on the officer. I'm sure outside agencies would help out when they can but you need a dedicated dog in your area.

Suppose you have a missing elderly alzheimers patient that gets out of their home in the dead of winter.. we all know that seconds count in this instance, seconds that a K-9 can provide.

I don't know if these guys have any training in highway drug interdiction but i would bet that there are a lot of large packages going up the taconic from NYC to upstate, a few good stops and seizures and this unit could fund itself and then some.

This is another case of politicians not thinking outside the box, they go right back to the old cost cutting standby, the emergency services. Unfortunatly, playing games with public safety has become all too common in politics today. I'm sure there is a ton of waste on the municipal side of the budget that can be cut, and i'm sure the cuts would be worth much more than $ 4000 dollars. Good luck to my brothers in the YPD !

[grumpyff 1,159]

According to this article the Journal News

"I am not disputing the value of the dogs," Siegel said. "I am saying at a time when we are cutting other services we have to look at every service and say, 'Can we do more with less? Can somebody else provide the service?' "At the same time, she said, she proposes replacing two patrol cars and is looking at upgrading the Police Department's computer software.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20101114/NEWS02/11140368/Yorktown-budget-ends-K9-unit-PBA-warns-residents-

Maybe only replace one car and hold off on computer upgrades. One patrol car alone would fund the K9 unit for several years.

[helicopper 1,050]

Unfortunately in this case,Towns/Departments would be reluctant to use the K9 simply because they don't want to pay because of their own budget restraints......they would probably just make due without.

Not unlike FD/EMS mutual aid, there is no billing for services used on a "mutual aid" basis. I'm not aware of anyone that charges other jurisdictions for the use of dogs or SWAT or other specialty resourcs. When unavailable, then YES you have to do without and look the old fashioned way.

Chris, in your professional opinion, do you think it is an option for Yorktown to go with just one K9 instead of two? Maybe another Agency could "adopt " the second K9? Cut the costs in half?

I can not possibly offer an opinion, professional or otherwise, on the efficiency of a single K-9 versus two. I will say this, crimecop hit the nail on the head - time is of the essence so you want a dog working and not being recalled when you need it. With that in mind, I would argue that it is most important for a dog to be available at all times and two dogs won't allow for that. I don't know if that answers your question but it's my point of view.

As for giving the dog to another agency, I suppose that it is possible but a dog and it's handler are a team and you can't really just give the dog to another cop and expect the new "team" to be successful.

[calhobs 110]

Heard thru grapvine that they are keeping the k9 units, does anyone know if thats true.

[joetnymedic 43]

Although I'm not active in the Westchester County area (haven't been since 2002 and yes I do miss it and the guys and gals up there) I personally think K-9 units are an invaluable asset to any police department and heck they assist FD's in locating victims here in CT too. So for what it costs to run a program, like someone else said what's it like a dollar an hour. What happens when Yortown or any other department disbands a program. Two things actually - 1. that K-9 is not available in town if needed and 2. They have to request aid from another department therefore leaving that department minus their K9 when they could have had their own right there. But once again it's the same thing as with FD's and even municipal EMS, While yes there is a chief running the department, the department is being funded by the municipality and we all know, that usually those on councils and in office usually don't have any experience in public safety whatsoever so they make ill fated decisions that in actuality place the public they serve at a risk for harm. You can bet the people looking to cut this program haven't got a day worth of field experience between all of them. My opinion is give the departments the tools they need and take the cut from someone like sanitation or a new truck or something. Don't cut public safety, if you do better hope nothing happens or you are going to get your pee-pee smacked

Joe