Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Take Home Vehicles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lewiston council split on proposed police take-home vehicle program; members ask for offsets
Summary
At an April 23 budget workshop the Lewiston City Council voiced conditional support for a police take-home vehicle program as a recruiting tool, but several councilors said purchases should be limited, offset by one-time funds (including possible drug asset-forfeiture funds), or phased in to limit tax and debt impacts.
At a Lewiston City Council budget workshop on April 23, councilors debated a proposed police take-home vehicle program that administrators and police leaders presented as a recruitment and retention tool that could reduce long-term operating costs.
Councilors who backed the program said it could help attract officers to a department that is struggling to recruit. "We can't just assign a zero value to that recruitment," Councillor Martel said, adding that his review of department numbers showed the program could be a net benefit over time and help bring three to four experienced officers onboard.
Opponents said this year's tight budget makes launching a new program risky. "This year is not the year to implement a take-home program," Councillor Herman said, citing uncertainties about borrowing costs and the city's multi-year fiscal hole.
Deputy Chief Adam Higgins explained how the police have historically used drug asset-forfeiture funds and cautioned those revenues have declined. "We usually use that stuff for extra items ... purchases like vehicles and trainings," Higgins said, but he warned: "We're definitely not getting the money that we used to get at one time." The chief and councilors noted legalization and shifts to electronic payments have reduced cash seized in some investigations.
Several councilors proposed compromises: scale back the program's scope from the original request, phase purchases, and use available asset-forfeiture funds or limited fund-balance withdrawals to offset early costs. Councillor Najarian suggested extending the vehicle replacement schedule and using asset-forfeiture money "to the extent possible" to reduce the program's tax impact.
Administrators said structuring purchases through the city's LCIP could smooth debt-service effects and that short-term borrowing rates were currently in the low single digits. Councilors asked administration and police leadership to return with precise cost scenarios, debt-service implications, and how much discretionary asset-forfeiture money could be committed without leaving the department unable to respond to emergent needs.
The council did not take a formal vote but the administrator recorded a preliminary sense in the room: several councilors said they were amenable to the program with conditions, though the group acknowledged a split remained and one absent member could change the balance. Administration will report back with detailed numbers before May 5, when the budget is scheduled for final action.
