Security Options
It looks like RMCSD has given the Joint Security Committee the options for our security department, and is looking for public feedback: http://www.ranchomurieta.com/node/6374
I am going to be doing some research on different options, and I thought this would be a good place to post information as I find it, so that we, as a community, have time to think about the options and discuss them.
I've been looking at some of the court records, and here is a quick snippet of what I have found so far, with respect to some of our history.
RMCSD was formed in 1982. Until 1984, RMA handled security, and then RMCSD took over, hiring most of the folks that had worked for RMA. In 1985, RMCSD passed a resolution for CSD to enforce RMA's CC&Rs. In late 1987, RMCSD discussed providing their security officers with "limited police powers" in order to enforce the Vehicle Code and other portions of what would become the district's Security Code. Officers were authorized under California Penal Code 836.5, and they hired officers that had been through the POST academy so that officers were more qualified than the requirements on paper.
Our current security code originated in 12/1987, and our officers were authorized, by ordinance, to arrest persons for violations of the district's Security Code, throughout the district, in accordance with Section 836.5 of the California Penal Code. The District Code was meant to instruct the officers which laws of the state and county that they were to enforce. This was passed by the Board, after community input and various legal consultations.
It gets messy after that, but what seems relevant to us (edit: relevant in the current discussion of powers), is that the authorization under PC 836.5 dates back to Dec 1987 (and was upheld in a court decision in 1993), and this is what our officers have used until recently. In 2005, the California Senate passed a bill, SB 135, which made a critical change to security and police protection for community service districts, and it caught our district in a bind. It appears that our officers no longer have 836.5 within the district, and are severely limited to what they can do.
This is not the same argument that comes up now and again about whether or not our security officers are peace officers, or have some type of limited law enforcement powers. This is a significant and important change in how our security is legally allowed to operate.
One part of the question seems to be, is this step back in the level of protection we have sufficient for now and in the future? Do we want back what we thought we had up until about 6 months ago? Or do we want more? I guess another question will be, will our needs change when development starts again? And certainly we want to know the most cost effective way to do any of this.
Good examples of this limited law enforcement (LLE) that is used elsewhere, is contained in the following links, for the Hungtington Beach Park Rangers, and also the San Diego Park Rangers:
http://www.surfcity-hb.org/files/users/city_clerk/MC1348.pdf
http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter06/Ch06Art03Division01.pdf
(Both links are set to open new windows, and will download the pdf file. To find the precise authorizing paragraph, do a text search for 836.5 .)
This is how our security used to operate, but no longer has that authority or protection, and now only can observe and report. Maybe the first question is whether we think this new current level of non-enforcement (observe and report) is adequate for now and the next many years? Or is there a different first question that folks can think of?
Lisa all I can find is a summary for SB 135. Do you know of a link that details it? As you said it limits the powers of a CSD to implement or enforce laws. But the summary reads " SB135 requires CSDs to get other public agencies permission before they provide police protection and law enforcement". Whats meant by that? Is police protection and law enforcement defined in the bill somewhere? Does this mean that Sac County can authorize a CSD security force to enforce laws? I know in Washington some cities authorize store security misdemeanor enforcement for the area of the store only. While a CSD can't write their own laws is there any provision to get "deputized" for the area inside the gates?
Also while we debate what type of security this community needs and can afford, we also need to assess if we will be happy with what enforcement Sac county can and will provide. The roll that our security force has been playing has given the county a free ride in that they have not had to respond and patrol as much as if we didn't have any security. Also by handling it ourselves we may have failed to record and document minor calls for service with the SO. Those calls for service affect manpower in a district. Its obvious that Sac SO isn't going to do security patrols all night long. Also the initial response time in any incident is going to be longer.
Years ago I worked a district that had gated community. the community was pretty rich and they had an agreement with our Chief that we would not come in to patrol except under extreme circumstances. they thought it scared people and looked tacky! Their tune changed after a series of occupied burglaries but my point is maybe by having our own security we have not opened our doors to the SO as widely as we could. Also one usually patrols where the problems are and we don't have alot of crime here.
The question I have is if there is any provision short of a constitutional amendment that would allow Sac SO/Sac County to give our troops enforcement powers on certain crimes, and thereby the authority to question and detain on those crimes? I know they can't do traffic violations as our streets are like a big private parking lot. Even if possible the union might not like civilians being used in place of deputies.
One final note. Everyone needs to realize that observe and report really limits what securtiy could do. How can one do crowd control at community events without allowing for contact with the public? Same with contacting neighborhood disputes.
Doug Lewis
Hi Doug,
Here is the link: Senate Bill 135
The old law allowed CSDs to provide security and police protection in the same povision. The new bill not only separates the two, but states that CSD must establish and operate a police department (61100(i) and (j)) in order to provide more than security. So this is what brings the district-wide 836.5 into question (not being a police department), and it seems to me also brings into question our hiring of SSD deputies? Now if the lawyers can find some way around this.....
The district lawyer has said that he might be able to come up with something that involves a change to the community services law to get back the 836.5 districtwide, and the thought by some is that it might not be too difficult. This is one of the choices that is available to the board. Maybe there is something there that would further lend itself to some type of MOU with the sheriff's dept, much like some universities have and inline with what you are thinking?
I know that our guys in the past have helped out both the CHP and the SSD -- as you said, our statistics are pretty skewed because of that.
Lisa, this is alarming. You seem well intended. Just a few questions:
1. Who is us, as in "what seems relevant to us.?
2. You state " is this step back in the level of protection we have sufficient for now and in the future?" What step back, what's the problem and what needs fixing? Are we a high crime area? If so, will there be additional costs to your advocacy?
3. You have numerously posted on the other blog. Are we really under some major threat that we need to be alarmed and concerned? Do you have a special interest in this issue?
T.,
Recent revelations at the May meeting formally announced this change in security and subsequent discussions by both boards and various committes are attempting to address it. It is also explained in the posts above. You will also find evidence of this when you attend the board meetings and listen to the discussions.
If you are concerned about my previous activities and attachments, I'm sure you will find all you need to know by searching my name on this site, using that search box at the top of the page here.
You can also click on the tagword *crime* and also the security logs to see some of the crime we do have out here. Of course that doesn't quite give the full picture. You can also go to the CSD website and in their 2005 Security Report, you will find some published penal code statistics that CSD has responded to, though they don't keep those statistics any more.
The CSD BOD is asking for public input. The decision that the board will have to make, with our input of course, is really a decision of what type of rules do we want enforced in our community, now, and as we grow.
Do we want officers to be able to cite for parking at the river? Handicapped parking at the Plaza? Do we want them to have any teeth when dealing with barking dogs and/or leash laws? Do we want them to help at accidents and fires, particularly if they can be first on the scene? Do we want them to be able to clear scenes in violent cases so the fire guys don't have to wait for SSD in order to treat? Do we want them to go back to responding to violent calls in RM when people need help? Observe and report is about prevention - stopping activity by being a presence *only*. They cannot enforce - they have no tools to deal with the vandalisms, and other "minor" crimes we have out here.
One decision is certainly to leave things as they are. But to make a decision, let's have some facts, and that's what I hope we can gather and post here
Do you have a special interest in this issue?
T., let me address your above statement here in a separate post.
Let me introduce myself. My name is Lisa Taylor-Bieg, and have been a resident since May 1994. My husband is the RMCSD Security Patrol Sergeant, and he has worked for Security since Feb 2000.
We both care for our community, and want to preserve what we have had -- some measure of safety and security. As a longtime resident, I remember when I didn't know anything about security, other than, I knew that they would be there if I ever needed them. But now I know a whole lot more.
This issue is not about any financial gain for me or my husband. Our community is at a turning point. We can leave things as they are, or we can build some type of public safety department that does what we have had already all these years. If the community so chooses, we can create a department that is community oriented, and can do what SSD cannot do -- service our community and the types of issues that we have here.
Mr Hanson I think Lisa was referring to Rancho Murieta or the community when she used the term us. On your question of what needs to be fixed, its my understanding that do to recent legal decisions our present security cant operate as it has been, so right now we are paying the same and getting less. Security was being asked to perform duties and enforce regulations that they cannot legally do. If we would continue to operate as it has been it can expose us (the community) to legal liabilities and it would also force our security employees to act where they don't have any legal authority to act and do it without any defined policies and procedures regarding such duties. That creates both a safety problem and a legal liability.
Its not a bad idea to look at all angles on this matter while its being decided which direction to take with security. Its also good to gather input from the community before a decision is made rather than act first and learn later it isn't what the community wanted or wanted to pay for.
Personally if I'm going to pay for extra security then I would like to have a security department that can chase, catch and detain the vandals vs having security that can only call it in to Sac County SO when they see it and wait an hour for a deputy to arrive. I also want to have them work under a prescribed set of guidelines because if they get sued its our pockets that it comes out of. I also want their duties to be defined so that they do not exceed their authority in a community I live in.
It may be alot less expense to fix/repair/amend what we do have rather than to try to hire outside help or incorporate. There are many costs to running a department above salaries that we could end up paying for. If residents are happy with the way security has been and feel its been good enough that's what they should tell the board. But they should do it knowing that the security we have now is more restricted since the legal beagles made their rulings.
While we are relatively a very low crime area it doesn' take too many ants to ruin a picnic. Ask the residents who have been vandalized and broken into. Security / law enforcement is one of those things that no one feels the need for until after they become a victim or there is an emergency. If law enforcement does its job preventing crime then of course there isn't a need for them. But when crimes do occur they will be the first to be criticized as not having done their job. We need to ask ourselves if we are a lower crime area because of the quality of people who reside here or is it at least in part due to fact that we have in place additional security and civil regulations?
Doug Lewis
Thanks Doug.
I hope to look at what other CSDs are doing in terms of security if I can get in contact with people this coming week.
For reference, here is one of the critical changes in the SB135:
The law when RMCSD was formed in the eighties:
A district formed under this law may...adopt...
(h) the equipment and maintenance of a police department or other police protection to protect and safeguard life and property.
The law changed (somewhere around 1993?):
A district formed under this law may….adopt...
(h) the equipment and maintenance of a police department, other police protection, or other security services to protect and safeguard life and property.
The law after SB 135 was passed in 2005:
Within its boundaries, a district MAY do any of the following...
(i) Provide police protection and law enforcement services by establishing and operating a police department that employs peace officers pursuant to Chapter
4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code.
(j) Provide security services, including, but not limited to, burglar and fire alarm services, to protect lives and property.
There are 3 communities that were identified as having only security. Surside CSD is one of these.
They are located within the City of Seal Beach, and maintain their gates to keep their portion of the beach private. They do not need to provide police protection because of their location, but they do provide security -- private security is hired to man (patrol) their two gates, which are pictured at these links (if the links work, they should open new windows or tabs):
I did not talk to this CSD personally, but I did find their Service Review from LafCo, submitted 9/05.
I also moved to Rancho Murieta for the security, but secure it is not. Anyone can walk into this community unapproached and do what they want in this community. I for one would be all for putting a real security entrance that only residece can access. We do not need the security stations we have if we have a newer technology access system, one that prevents anyone from accessing this community without security devices. We would still need security, just not at the gates. This would enable security to be in our community instead of gate keepers...
Provides an in-house K9 security department, with gate personnel contracted to private security. They provide 24 hour armed patrol with K9s, there is no law enforcement authority. This is a gated, golf course community of about 340 homes, north of San Diego, near Temecula. CHP has a substation on the CSD property and are a constant presence, and their sheriff deputies are "at the top of the hill" and minutes away.
They have 5 full time patrol officers, 1 only works 8-16 hours per week (I couldn't tell if that meant 5 or 6 total officers). There is one officer per shift. They offer PERS retirement, pay full benefits, life insurance, they are indemnified, etc. There is a monthly fee for this service (darn it, forgot to ask the amount).
The dogs are kenneled at the CSD, both dogs and handlers are trained by law enforcement. (They have had a Rottweiler and a Doberman, but now they just have German Shepherd Dogs.) This arrangement has been in place probably 10 years or so. The woman I spoke with also noted that they have casinos surrounding them and in all areas surrounding the district, there has been an increase in crime (but not in within the CSD's district).
Provides an in-house security department. SLCSD (instituted in about 1998) is located outside of Carmel, and is also a Preserve. It contains about 20,000 acres, and 296 lots for homes. There are about 67 homes already built, about 30 in construction, and about 25 (or less) full-time residents. Monterey sheriff deputies are about 30-40 minutes away in terms of response.
I spoke with the GM at length, who is familiar with RM, and he did say that our security needs were different, with SLCSD being a much quieter community. It is also well-hidden, and access is very closely controlled. He said that they probably spend less than $1,000,000 a year on security -- they have manned gates and a roving patrol. All training is in house (no BSIS).
Their security are considered first-responders. They are focused on public safety. They prefer that their security guards have EMT training (and pay more for officers with this), and encourage their officers to join the volunteer fire department (which also earns a higher pay rate). They have a director of security, deputy director, 5 full time security officers and some part time. They consider themselves a public safety department, as opposed to one used for law enforcement purposes.
They had tried a private security firm, and were very unhappy with them. They do like to hire from within. He notes that there is more of a premium to pay this way, but you get a more well-rounded employee that knows and cares about the community. These individuals are more dedicated, they understand the culture of the community, and care about your values.
One issue that they are confronted is the large amount of guests that use the vacation homes. They don't understand the culture and non-rigid security personnel are needed to educate, rather than punish. Many guests need to be informed if they are acting in an unsafe manner, or are in danger of burning the community down....
He commented on how difficult it is to describe the level of security that a community needs. often impossible, because of the needed balance. A certain *must* that was repeatedly emphasized is that you need a strong director of security, as that is the position that drives everything. This director needs to be a people person and also have knowledge of technology.
They do rely heavily on technology -- there is one way in/out, and everyone is stopped and id'ed -- they get a pass, and license plates are recorded. They use license plate recognition for license plates that are already in the system. He said that even with the technology, they still need someone at the gate to help guide people to where they need to be. He noted that you could have an unmanned gate, but you still needed someone to monitor the camera to let people in when their is a license plate that is not in the system.
He noted that the "eyes at the gates" were a huge part of the security, and they do have some training for their gate officers related to this. The gates provide them with marketing, customer service, and security.
There are roughly 400-500 contractors that come through their gate each morning (good size houses being built), and controlling this population is about 90% of their problems, They spent $7,500 with a radar trailer with a camera, and they take a very diligent, hard stance on speeding.
Fines are only given for contractors. Contractors put down a bond and the CSD will fine against that bond. And it does accrue. The real problems are often the subcontractors, and they get to them through the general contractors and this bond.
Vendors are only threatened -- they receive a warning first, and the second time they send a letter to their boss and threaten to refuse access.
The CSD owns and operates the roads. Their security does do radar, and does "friendly" traffic stops. The do not cite in these instances (except as noted above), but hand out a flyer as a safety reminder. Typically residents respond with embarrassment. Their security uses an overhead light bar (white and blue, with a yellow caution light), and they do not go over the speed limit. They have worked this out with the local CHP.
He stated that typically law enforcement is very welcoming of any help that they can get, as they don't have the money to increase service to the community and like any help that they can get. They have a *great* relationship with the local sheriff's department and CHP. The local law enforcement are *very* appreciative -- the security personnel are often first responders, they coordinate with local LE -- and this is where it is critical to have a proactive chief of security rather than one that is not active.
(The Special Districts Annual Report for 05-06 lists revenues for security at about $980,000. Pauma Valley above, which i can't seem to edit right now, lists about $806,000, while Surfide lists about $464,000 for their security. Btw, RMCSD lists about $991,000 for that fiscal year.)
Provides security through a private contract . Three Arch Bay is located in South Laguna Beach, between San Diego and Los Angeles, within the city limits. The city is about 10 miles long (about 1 mile inland), and about 20,000-30,000 people. The city has a full police department, from which they get a good response. The CSD is the largest entity in the city, and they also pay a lot of property tax, to which the local police is responsive. I spoke with the Executive Director.
They used to hire their own security, but the employer costs were too much. With private security, they don't have personnel issues (employer costs, sick calls, etc.). The main thing is not the company that is hired, but the main supervisors. They have had some miserable ones, and the current supervisor they have is a blessing, "1 out of 1,000". This particular supervisor keeps them in a straight line and also has control of hiring and firing. "Without that authority, the supervisor is a toothless tiger".
Their security is paid for by the property taxes, and also an extra $200 on each parcel. There are 500 homes in the community.
They have security at the gates, roving, on foot, and stationary at different times of the day. Their security is used essentially for traffic enforcement -- to keep people out that don't live there. They have 24/7 guards, the patrols are on foot until 1 pm, and roving patrols until 10pm. (I'm guessing the 24/7 is the gates?). Their problems consist of kids at the beach with alcohol, kids calling themselves into the community using others' passcodes, etc. In these instances, two guards are always sent to calls so that they create a presence and don't get into fights. They don't deal with penal code issues (like petty theft, vandalism, etc.) They do have problems with parents that want little Johnnie to drink in the community so that he isn't out somewhere else drinking. Included in that traffic enforcement is one security guard that just "sits in a parking lot and look pretty".
The CSD has only stormdrains and security, the HOA has the roads. They have adopted the VC. Joining the HOA is voluntary and 98% of the homeowners have joined. There are no CC&Rs, about 6 miles of roads. District guards will write for fire hydrant, red zones.
They are very strict with their construction enforcement and fining. For example, if 3 trucks are parked improperly at a construction site. Those citations are enforced by the association out of their deposit. The contractors put down a $10,000 deposit, and at "$500 a wack" for construction parking, it gets their attention. This was passed by the association with 80+% -- people have had it with construction. This is the only CSD I've found that writes cites for an HOA.
(The Special Districts Annual Report for 05-06 lists revenues for security at about $921,000. )
Provides extra Sheriff enforcement within the district (near Temecula in Riverside County). I spoke with the GM to confirm what is on their website: In past years, the District experienced immense problems with avocado theft, burglaries, trash dumping, reckless driving, abandoned cars, and illegal camps. The District property owners determined that the level of service provided by the County was not adequate, and beginning in 1989, the District contracted with the County for a Deputy Sheriff dedicated to serving our area. This situation proved so successful that in 1990, the District was asked by the property owners to increase the level of contract deputies to two. (That is, they pay for 80 hours a week of supplemental police protection.)
Provides extra CHP enforcement for their roads. In 2006, PBCSD went through LAFCO to authorize the hiring and use of Supplemental Law Enforcement. They have private roads where the Vehicle Code applies, and they contract to hire overtime CHP officer(s) to enforce that VC. In April 2008, they voted to extend this contract and capped the cost to $165,000 in the budget for this service.
CHP officers work no set schedule, only as officers volunteer to work overtime. Enforcement is sporadic -- sometimes for a day, then none for a week, then could be five days in a row. Mostly one officer works at a time, but sometimes there can be two. The district designated 12 locations where they wanted enforcement.
For criminal activity, the Sheriff's department has jurisdiction.
I do have several CSDs that I haven't had time to write up yet, but I think that I have most of the categorized now. I still have the four in-house police departments to contact.
CSDs that only provide only security functions
Pauma Valley Community Services District (in-house)
Santa Lucia Community Services District (in-house)
Surfside Community Services District (contract)
Three Arch Bay Community Services District (contract)
CSDs that provide police protection via supplemental law enforcement (hiring sheriff deputies or CHP or inhouse)
Capistrano Bay Community Services District (in-house) **
De Luz Community Services District (SD)
Diablo Community Services District (SD)
Rancho Murieta Community Services District (SD) *
Pebble Beach Community Services District (CHP)
Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District (SD)
CSDs that have a police department
Bear Valley Community Services District (in-house)
Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District (in-house)
Lake Shastina Community Services District (in-house)
Mountain House Community Services District (contract)
Stallion Springs Community Services District (in-house)
*has provided limited law enforcement under the protections of PC 836.5
** also provides private security through a private firm
Construction started in 2001 for this community. It is a master-planned community that will consist of 12 neighborhoods housing 44,000 residents. It looks to be its own little "city", managed by a CSD. I think this is also the only dependent district that I spoke with -- the county BOD acts as the BOD for the CSD. Looking at their revenues online, 63% of the revenues are from "private sources", I don't get that??? This is also one of the CSDs that enforces HOA CC&Rs with their own compliance officer, fine structure, etc. I spoke with them earlier regarding CC&Rs. I did not speak with their police department.
This is the only CSD that I could find that contracts for a police department, and it is by master plan. San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 specifies that the standard ratio for law enforcement shall be 1.5 officers assigned to patrol duty per 1,000 residents in urban areas. Since this development could have a significant impact on police services in the county, mitigation requirements were built into the project to provide incremental increases in police protection. As growth in this community progresses, increased police protection is planned for and will be triggered.
They contract to have a sheriff's deputy presence 5 days a week, for a total of less than 40 hours per week. For the remaining two days, they have a retired deputy that they contract for. Criminal activity and traffic enforcement is supplied. They have no security officers. They provide their contract deputies with their own SUV, weapons, etc. They probably write about 3 citations per month. It's really visibility that is the deterrent. Often, they will just park in a very visible spot when doing traffic enforcement.
The CSD owns or manages the roads (about 8 miles, very narrow), so they have ordinances written for speeding, etc. The hours that the deputies work are flexible, often varies according to whether there is an event at the country club, etc. They had one deputy that was great with the kids, but no other deputy has been able to duplicate that. There are about 340 homes, and quickly the deputies get to know about 80% of the population.
They had tried a private patrol, and it was a disaster. You would have to have a large company to go with. The smaller ones seem to hire only entry level personnel. They found it administratively very difficult, and having only security doesn't carry a lot of persuasion with the community.
Provides extra sheriff enforcement within the district. They contract for a team of law enforcement, including a community services officer. (It looks like all surrounding cities also contract with the sheriff's department.) This is also the only CSD that I talked to that was run by a management firm (administrative and financial parts are managed by the firm).
It was stressed that, in spite of the description, this coverage is only supplemental. Patrol is not 24/7 - only for a certain number of hours, with rotated shifts to provide a non-routine presence. There is an annual charge on the tax bill for this service.
The deputies that are contracted for are very hands-on. They will write traffic citations, monitor and patrol in specific areas, attend community events. They do perform actual police work - arrests, warrants, investigations, task force activites. The deputies are very ingrained in the community. The CSD provides equipment for operational activities, crowd control, night vision, etc.
There are 3 farming communities within the CSD, 5,000 parcels, including agricultural lands. The population is roughly 8,000 - 10,000 people. Fifteen to twenty years ago, the area was extremely rural and isolated, and what the Riverside County Sheriff could provide wasn't sufficient. There is a huge illegal dumping problem there. The CSD was formed to handle law enforcement and trash disposal. The district imposed a mandatory service program (trash service is no longer optional), and that has helped a lot with the illegal dumping. They have about 17 community clean-up activity events per year (Trashbuster Program), with increasing community and law enforcement involvement. For Earth Day they printed and passed out 5,000 anti-littering coloring books to the kids. They are very proactive in this area. They get more involvement than most cities.
In the CSD district, a Riverside Sheriff Dept command center was just built, and the CSD rents space in this building, which also houses a library. The command center has really increase response time and protection as needed. Before that, the sheriff came from a community 20 miles away. The district has also seen an population expansion, including more farm worker buildings for the migrating families.
They have worked hard on increasing the number of community events, and law enforcement participation has really picked up along with that. They have lots of community clean-up events.
Their community services officers will fill in as community outreach representatives when the deputies don't have time, speaking atcommunity councils (3 of them), helping with programs such as the clean-up programs, transporting, vehicle abatement, county code enforcement, and generally pick up what the deputies don't have time for.
Provides police protection that is a CSD employee, and also contracts for private security. They have 200 homes, and a "skinny" revenue base. While his agency is not POST certified, his officer is. Their actual cop is random, part-time, 20-24 hours. His main job is for traffic control and speed. He is equipped as a deputy is (armed, mace, handcuffs, etc.) and drives a CSD vehicle equipped for a peace officer. Local deputies are about 1 minute away, not more than 10 minutes.
They used to use public officers operating under 836.5 to enforce traffic on their roads (roads owned or managed by the CSD). They wrote traffic citations into court, ran radar, etc. However, in 2004, the court informed them that they would no longer honor the citations unless they were written by a peace officer. [Lisa note: when RMCSD security officers were writing traffic citations into the courts, they were using POST certified officers, and that was the way it was initially set up by then-Chief Noller and the RMCSD BoD at the time.]
They do have their own "law enforcement" ordinances that are processed as misdemeanors or infractions, because those are the ordinances necessary to manage their property (the roads, etc.): parking, speed limit, animal control, rv and trailer issue, fires, encroachment, trash, mostly traffic and vehicle related, etc. This is one of those CSDs that has district owned roads and a private gate.
They also provide 24/7 contracted security. Probably 90% of the private patrol's job is one of interference - observe and report - trespass, parking, loose dogs, illegal fires, etc. They primarily deal with beach issue. I don't know when they started with the private security. He did note that the private security is treated like crap by just about everyone. They also have one 24/7 gate that is run by private security.
There are four CSDs that have their own police departments. They are all 24/7 police departments, operating under Penal Code Section 830.1, and affiliated with POST.
I have spoken to two of those so far, Stallion Springs and Lake Shastina. Both of these departments are 24/7, and work closely with the local sheriff departments and other agencies.
Stallion Springs has about 1,200 homes and 4 officers (pop about 3,500).
Lake Shastina has about 1,000 structures (4,000 lots, population about 2,700) with 3 full time officers, 1 officer paid with grant money, and a community service officer (secretary, animal control, etc.)
Bear Valley and Kensington, neither of which I have spoken with, also run their own dispatch centers, and Bear Valley even supplies dispatch services to a local city. It looks like Bear Valley (2,500 homes) has 8 sworn officers while Kensington has 10 sworn officers (2,200 homes).
As a comparison, our security, with 2,500 homes, has 5-6 officers.
Not much to write about the police departments, other than they are small, and they have found a way to make it work. And uniformly residents have opted to pay a bit more for that protection (this seems to be true in police and security CSDs). There are a lot of details to look into, but they don't really lend to posting them here. If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to answer what I can. I would certainly be interested in hearing people's reactions.
Here are some amounts, the format prompted by this discussion:
http://www.ranchomurieta.com/node/6768#comment-2197
The figures are not from the current budgets (public records that I could get online lag), and they are not all from the same source. Some are from LAFCo documents, while others are from the CSD's website.
CSDs that only provide only security functions
Pauma Valley Community Services District (in-house, $806,000, ~340 homes)
Santa Lucia Community Services District (in-house, $981,000, 300 lots, 100 homes so far)
Surfside Community Services District (contract, $465,000)
Three Arch Bay Community Services District (contract, $921,000, ~500 homes)
CSDs that provide police protection via supplemental law enforcement (hiring deputies or CHP)
De Luz Community Services District
Diablo Community Services District ($450,000, ~340 homes)
Rancho Murieta Community Services District* (~$992,000, split that nearly 50-50 for gates-patrol, ~2,500 homes)
Pebble Beach Community Services District ($165,000, sporadic CHP overtime enforcment)
Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District ($723,000, ~8,000-10,000 population)
CSDs that provide police protection by a hiring peace officer as a CSD employee
Capistrano Bay Community Services Distric**
($600,000, there have been some changes since the figure was optained, ~200 homes)
CSDs that have a police department
Bear Valley Community Services District (in-house, POST participating, $1,748,000, they contract out their dispatch service to a nearby city so they have a large dispatch center, with corresponding budget, etc. This is also the only CSD PD that also runs gate operations, 2500 homes)
Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District (in-house, POST participating, $2,465,000, almost 8,000 residents, they are a full service police department, 2200 homes)
Lake Shastina Community Services District (in-house, POST participating, $446,000, 1000 structures, 4000 lots, population 3500) They are seeking an increase in their tax so that they can expand to offer more first responder, emergency services.
Mountain House Community Services District (contract with sheriff by developer design)
Stallion Springs Community Services District (in-house, POST participating, $632,000, 1200 homes, population 3500)
*has provided limited law enforcement under the protections of PC 836.5
** also provides private security through a private firm
Wow, Lisa. You sure do adhere to the theory that if you can’t dazzle ‘em with data, baffle ‘em with bullpoop. First, I’m not sure you understand what a link is for. It’s so that interested individuals can do their own search. I couldn’t care less about security policies in Surfside, Pauma Valley, or Stallion Springs, and I don’t need my RM forum page crammed with this immaterial info. Further, I take issue with the idea that Rancho Murieta is so rife with dangerous criminal activity that we need to adopt stronger forces to combat it. There are always law-and-order extremists that believe a better society could be achieved if only there were more guns, stop signs, and powers of arrest. I personally adhere to the idea that barking dogs and leash violations should be handled by conversation, that armed security forces lead to increasingly armed criminals, and that stop signs on every corner make idiots out of drivers. I hope that RMA and CSD are not hijacked by alarmists who see terrorists on every corner. We need a calm, engaged, level-headed security team who know the community and deal with it in the least confrontational way possible.
Wendy,
I would have loved to provide a link for all the materials posted above, but unfortunately, that type of research isn't available via a simple link.
We need a calm, engaged, level-headed security team who know the community and deal with it in the least confrontational way possible.
That actually sounds like a well-trained, community oriented peace officer 
Could you please tell me what type of calls that you expect our security to respond to, and what you mean by level-headed, as opposed to whatever the opposite would be?
Could you also please explain to me your expectation of what an engaged force would be? Perhaps give a specific example or two of a call handled in a non-confrontational manner?
I would like to respond to your post, but I want to make sure that I fully understand what you are saying first.
Wendy,
Let me post what I wanted to earlier. This is not about "law-and-order extremists", and this is not about a community that is "rife with dangerous criminal activity".
We do not need stronger forces to combat our community issues. But *we do need* to regain the authority that officers previously had, and we do need to make it **legal** and to also make legal the other actions that they took on behalf of our community. Our officers need the legal authority to engage those that are acting outside of laws. My understanding is that they have always started every call in the least confrontational way (if they don't, that's an issue for the Chief), but they also need legal authority to escalate that response in situations where needed.
What types of calls did they used to go on? Nothing I have said is made up or exaggerated - I have seen what they used to do on a daily basis, and I know what they no longer can do.
They **used to** respond to various "youth activity calls" , including having the authority to hold juveniles for their parents to pick up. They responded to various fight situations (not long ago there was the incident of a father trying to fight a youth because the youth had allegedly sold his kid some drugs). I recall two attempted rapes in the last 4 or 5 years (one in the parking lot over at the CSD building at night) We do have thieves and vandals here, we have had arsonists, we have drug dealers. As I said earlier to Dick Cox, we don't all see what happens behind the closed doors of RM, but the security officers do, and I want them to have the legal authority to protect themselves and to protect us. Those aren't things that will show up in "statistics", and if you look only at statistics, then anyone that understands law enforcement knows that you aren't looking at the total picture.
To get a better idea of what we aren't told, let me give you a comparison.
******************
Here is what residents were told regarding the authority of their security officers, from the RMCSD Pipeline Spring 2007:
The Security Department's primary focus is on safety-related issues, whether it is a CC&R violation, drunk driving, an alcohol related issue or other activity which can put the public in danger. In those instances, the appropriate agency, Sacramento County Sheriff or California Highway Patrol, is contacted. Depending on staffing and if it is an immediate safety issue or if the public is in immediate danger, Security Officers can detain violators, pending arrival of Sheriff or CHP personnel. CSD Security does not possess arrest authority, except to make a citizen's arrest.
Here is what residents were told regarding the authority of their security officers, from the RMCSD Pipeline Fall 2004:
Security staff does not have eace officer status, but they can make a citizen’s arrest for crimes they witness.
******************
Since 1987, the RMCSD Board of Directors had given arrest authority to their officers for anything that appeared in the district code. Here is the original authorization:
RMCSD District Code, Chapter 21, Section 7.20 Enforcement: District security officers designated by the District who conform to the standards for peace officers of the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and training (CA Penal Code Section 13500, g "se .), shall have the duty and authority arrest persons for any violation of the provisions of Section 7.00, g "se ., in accordance with Section 836.5 of the California Penal Code. (in code since 1987)
Hmmmmm, we residents are told they have no arrest authority, yet their district code, what the officers are told when they were hired, and the code that determines how they do their job, tells them that they have arrest authority and they are directed to use this authority?!?!??????
******************
In 2002, that authorization was strengthened to go outside of just those ordinances listed in the District Code:
RMCSD District Code, Chapter 21, Section 7.06(d)(2) Authority to Arrest and Cite: Security officers of the District designated by the District Manager shall have the authority and immunities of public officers and employees set Section 836.5 of the Penal Code to make arrests and issue citations in accordance with provisions of Chapter 5C (commencing with Section 853.6), Title 3, Part 2 of the Penal Code, for misdemeanor violations of the laws of the State of California and ordinances of the County of Sacramento and the District, committed with-in their presence within the boundaries of the District. (added in 2002)
Hmmmm, we residents are told that the officers have nothing more than citizen's arrest authority, while their actual previous arrest authority is not only upheld, but strengthened? Can someone answer me -- can some from RMCSD get authorization to post on this board, and explain this discrepency? Why we werre never told about this arrest authority that the officers were given, that was part of their job when they were hired? Why were the ordinances and the "laws" of Rancho Murieta never posted on their website, or published in anything that residents had access to, unless they knew to request these under public access?????
******************
I think it's important to contrast that with what they are currently authorized to do, since the May security meeting:
Provided by the district lawyer 5/28/08:
.....Due to the limited statutory authority of the District, District security officers do not have authority to make arrests and issue citations pursuant to Penal Code Section 836.5.
....under no circumstances may a security officer detain a person against their will.
...[a primary function of a security officer is] to protect persons and property by seeking to prevent an incident or offense from occurring....In situations where a prevention of an incident is not possible, the function of a security officer is to observe and report. The function of observing and reporting includes informing the local police or proper authorities about what has or is occurring, writing a report detailing the incident, and testifying about the incident should a person ultimately be charged and brought to trial.
So when I read in the RVT that a director states "Things have not really changed except in people's mind", do I believe that director's interpretation, or do I believe what is written in the District Code and by the District Lawyer, and the changes I see in the day to day duties of the security officers?
(It might also be pointed out that the crime statistics were dropped from the Pipeline, just about the time that the new chief took over from Chief Noller WHY?.)
******************
So Wendy, I respectfully submit, that this is not about the issues that you were concerned about. This is about providing for our own, as we have done for the past 20 years, and can no longer do.
Wow, really all this in a day!! In case you didn't get the memo, our security does what it can do. No power, no authority, no jurisdiction. You can basically do what you want. No one can stop you!! They come to your house and you can tell them to beat it. Wise up folks.....little more than expensive rent-a-cops. With absolutely no authority!!! By our own choosing!
i find this banter somewhat more than amusing.
Joined: 2008-01-10