Los Gatos voters recently rejected a proposal endorsed by a majority of the Town Council to balance the municipal budget with utility taxes. But without the ability to raise taxes or stimulate increased revenues through economic development, that means cutting budget fat, even if some sacred cows wind up on the chopping block.
With a budget of $5.2 million this year, the Los Gatos Police Department represents a substantial investment in public safety, and, on a per capita basis, costs significantly more than its neighbors. Is the town safer as a result, or have Los Gatans become spoiled by a level of service disproportionate to the town's means and crime levels?
In Saratoga, a city that welcomes its share of weekend visitors, the cost per person for police service provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department is just $74 per resident.
In this week's cover story, Chief Larry Todd cautions against cuts in his budget, which costs $187 per capita, in large part because residents expect premium service. The Town Council has generally agreed.
Todd argues that a highly visible police presence deters crime. There is evidence to support this point of view. When the city of San Jose targets a high-crime area, one of its strategies is to increase police patrols, because criminals tend to avoid selling drugs on street corners where police cars drive by frequently.
Los Gatos is not San Jose's East Side, however, and it's unlikely that the town will experience a spike in crime should the council deny Chief Todd some of the funds he's requesting.
There are ways to cut costs without cutting benefits, and many smart governmental entities have learned how to do this since the passage of Proposition 13. For example, perhaps police could have worked with housing officials to enforce code violations at Toby's Motel rather than stage an elaborate, expensive investigation and raid.
Similarly, was an undercover investigation required to force the closure of a small store selling items that could be used as drug paraphernalia? Or could the town have negotiated its exit, as store owners maintained, in the wake of an arrest on minor, technical charges?
And, should undercover officers spend weeks in classrooms, or should they work with school officials to reduce drug use among students without relying as heavily on criminal prosecutions? Many civic leaders have expressed a desire for a drug-free community, but there is a dollar cost to handling substance abuse as a law-enforcement matter.
Finally, does Chief Todd need to live in an expensive part of town, or would Los Gatos be as well served if he lived in Campbell or West San Jose? A survey conducted at the time of the town's $350,000 housing loan to Todd determined that Los Gatos was alone in providing this type of assistance; other cities with high real estate prices were satisfied if a chief lived nearby.
Los Gatans should be grateful for the town's low crime rate, the department's quick response time and the dedication of its officers. But does Los Gatos need to pay $187 per capita to keep the town safe? What if citizens paid $175 per capita for police? Or $165? At what point would service drop in a perceptible way?
Tough decisions require that tough questions be asked. Los Gatos cannot continue to drink champagne on a beer budget. Perhaps the town will have to settle for a nice bottle of sauvignon blanc.
This article appeared in the Los Gatos Weekly-Times, May 15, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved