Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calimesa council warned of rising sheriff contract costs; deputies, POP officer and CSO roles debated
Summary
Finance staff and county representatives told the council that Riverside County Sheriff contract costs have risen and are projected to continue increasing; the pop‑officer and community service officer (CSO) roles and possible savings were discussed but no formal service reductions were directed.
Calimesa City Council members heard detailed projections Friday that the city’s contract cost for the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department is rising and likely to remain elevated for the next several years, driven primarily by salary and benefits increases.
City staff and Captain Northrop of the sheriff’s office presented trend data showing multi‑year increases and a projected annual escalation in the sheriff’s contract. “When we look at that 7%, that’s trying to roughly estimate off of what the deputy union got to try to get to that number,” Captain Northrop said of projected future increases. Staff said those increases could amount to roughly $500,000 more in the coming two‑to‑three years if projected rates hold.
Staff highlighted two sheriff‑related cost elements the city currently funds: a dedicated POP (problem‑oriented policing) officer paid from the city budget (presented as costing about $450,000 per year) and a full‑time community service officer (CSO) budgeted at roughly $140,000 paid from a supplemental law enforcement fund. Councilmembers asked whether eliminating the CSO could yield savings; staff and the sheriff’s representative warned that the CSO performs traffic investigation, parking enforcement, tow stand‑bys and other functions that prevent routine duties from occupying deputies’ time.
Councilmember discussion focused on whether to prioritize savings or to preserve the CSO position to avoid diverting deputy time to lower‑priority tasks. Councilmember Eric said the CSO’s “workload… frees up some time for [deputies] to attend to more important calls.” City finance staff suggested a prudent approach is to budget conservatively for sheriff contract increases and to set aside funds in years when revenues exceed expectations to smooth future spikes.
Captain Northrop explained the county’s billing method for contract cities: the department bills for actual costs and performs a later audit/true‑up that can create supplemental invoicing. “We’re always gonna bill with… whatever it is the cost is,” he said. Staff and council discussed strategies such as budgeting a higher contingency and reserving surplus funds to offset future swings.
No formal motion was made to change law‑enforcement service levels; councilmembers asked staff to continue evaluating staffing and deployment options and to consider strategies for smoothing contract‑year volatility when preparing the final budget for adoption.
The discussion also noted that the supplemental law enforcement fund covers the CSO and part of the POP officer and that the city budgets an estimated $100,000 annually for supplemental deputies (two‑person responses) which could rise if the city faced a high‑profile incident.
