A scheduled Tuesday evening update on body cameras for Redding police officers turned into an impromptu forum on the community’s growing frustration with crime, vagrancy and drug use in the downtown area.
The City Council got an earful from community members who disregarded the agenda item—a report from Police Chief Robert Paoletti on the body cameras that the council approved a year ago—and used the occasion to update the council on how squalid Redding’s streets are becoming.
“It’s difficult enough to operate a business, and then when you have to deal with drugs, and people harassing your customers and defecating on your property, and stealing your property, and sleeping on your property, and plugging in cell phones all over your buildings… it’s getting really old,” said Chris Resner, the co-owner of the Dutch Bros. coffee kiosks in Redding.
Despite those issues, Resner said he and his wife, Erin, love the community. “It’s disappointing to see what’s going on in our community with drugs,” he said, but noted that downtown’s “really serious issues can be taken care of with a lot of focus and attention.”
Sam Allen, who owns the Carousel boutique on Yuba Street, used the public comment portion of the three-hour meeting to tell council members that a new and meaner collection of “thugs and drug addicts” has began inhabiting downtown in recent months.
“There’s a new element there,” said Allen, who has frequently chronicled her efforts to maintain a business in downtown. An elderly Lorenz Hotel resident said some of the riff-raff has taken to harassing seniors. “How can you keep a business if you drive away the customers and the tourists?’ he asked.
Having police officers outfitted with body cameras is not the answer to downtown’s crime problem, but they are expected to provide more transparency, aid in investigations and cut down on frivolous complaints and lawsuits, Paoletti said.
Since there is no statewide policy to use as a reference point, Paoletti said he has been formulating Redding’s camera policy by researching a dozen other police departments, consulting with the city attorney and talking to vendors.
He estimates the 100 cameras and related paraphernalia will cost about $100,000—funds for the purchase are available in the city’s federal asset seizure account—and the vendor-based cloud storage needed to keep videos available for 25 months will cost another $100,000 a year (based on an average daily usage of two hours; the more videos recorded, the more storage space and manpower will be needed).
Paoletti said asset seizure funds cannot be spent on recurring expenses so those monies cannot be used on the storage expenses, which will include a non-sworn community service officer to catalog and retrieve videos as needed.
The policy covers when the cameras are to be activated (at the officer’s discretion, but whenever an officer anticipates a law enforcement action): when they are not to be used (during certain sensitive investigations involving minors and/or victims of sexual assault); and when videos will be released (Paoletti said the department will endeavor to be as transparent as possible while respecting victims’ rights).
The use of body camera represents a change in working conditions, and as such it will need to be approved by both unions representing officers and supervisors in the department. Paoletti said negotiations are ongoing.
Councilwoman Missy McArthur, well aware of the unrest in the community and expressing the concern that the council “has been deemed impotent” on the issue, pressed for a time-frame to help expedite the body camera program.
Her motion for a six-month trial period and a subsequent report on the effectiveness and costs was approved with a unanimous vote. Prior to voting, Councilwoman Kristen Schreder emphasized the importance of hammering out a solid policy and securing a union buy-in before initiating the camera program.
Paoletti said the policy was close to being finalized and that a request for proposals for the cameras would be ready within a month. He noted the camera program was just one of many time-consuming projects his department has been working on. Others include relocating to the new police building, the council-mandated Blueprint for Public Safety and a massive retrofit of the department’s antiquated records management system.
In other action Tuesday, the council voted 4-1, with Councilman Gary Cadd dissenting, to approve a 2-percent pay raise for department directors and division managers. Personnel Director Sheri DeMaagd said those executives received a similar raise last year, but prior to that, salaries had been unchanged since 2008. During that stretch, between the furlough Fridays and having to pay a 7 percent CalPERS employee member contribution, she said their salary dropped by 5 percent.
“We can’t afford raises. We just can’t afford it,” Cadd said. Bob Reitenbach, a frequent council critic, agreed. If the city doesn’t have enough money to adequately fund the police department, he asked how it can justify raises. City workers are well-paid, he said. “If they don’t like their job, let them go. There’s somebody who will take it and be happy.”
The pay raises will cost the city $351,000, DeMaagd said.