Council Member Tarber, Council Member Biddes, Council Member Horton, Mayor Potembrees,
Mayer Calderon.
We will commence to agenda item 1 approval of agenda as to form staff, are there any changes to the agenda?
Are there any comments from the public comments from the council?
Oh.
One question.
This item be?
Item B?
Yes.
Resolution for the dog?
Yes.
Okay, is there any way we can move that up so that he can get out of here?
Ah, yeah, we can move that up. Would you like to move it up now?
I'm familiar all day, so.
Okay.
Yeah. Is everyone, oh, yeah. Do I have a second?
Yes.
Great. We have a second.
Where are we moving it up to?
We're going to move it up to the foreclosession.
Okay, sure.
We'll be the first item on the agenda.
Okay.
And I'm sorry, the motion was from.
Mr. Tarber, and a second from Mr. Perez.
Okay.
Roll call.
Council Member Tarber.
Yes.
Council Member Fiddes.
Yes.
Council Member Horton.
Mayor Potembrees.
Yes.
Mayer Calderon.
Yes.
Mr. Tarber.
Fantastic.
Okay.
So, now we are moving to item B.
So, item B.
This is consideration and approval for the city council of the city of Arvin declaring certain city owned personal property as surplus and authorizing the disposition pursuant to government code.
Section 3, 7, 3, 5, 0
1, 1, 1, 1, 0.
Staff recommends the council to approve the resolution and authorize a city manager to sell canine doggo to the city of Schaffter for $10,000.
Subject to a purchase ill agreement prepared by the city attorney's office.
Staff, do you have a report?
I do.
Thank you.
Government Code Section 3, 7, 3, 5, 0.
In Arvin Municipal Code Section 3.08.110, allow for and govern this position of surplus equipment and material subject to city council approval.
The Arvin Police Department has a four-year-old police canine purchased approximately three years ago for $12,000.
The canines assigned handler has left the department and is now employed by the Schaffter police department.
Schaffter PD has formally offered $10,000 to purchase a canine, so may continue working with its existing handler.
Police canines performed best with a consistent handler.
This sells support continuity of training, care, and animal welfare by keeping the canine with the handler.
It is already bonded to.
Retaining the canine would require assigning a new handler and sending that officer to a six-to-eight week canine handler school
at a cost of up to $6,000 plus additional time for bonding before deployment.
Based on the canines age and service history, it is estimated to have approximately four working years remaining.
The proposed $10,000 represents a reasonable recovery of the city's investment while eliminating ongoing costs related to training, medical care, equipment, and liability.
Staff recommends a city council approve the attached resolution to clearing city owned property canine doggo as surplus property,
and authorised a city manager to sell canine doggo to the city of Schaffer for $10,000,
to a purchase settlement agreement prepared by the city attorney's office.
Thank you so much for your staff report.
Are there any comments from the public?
Good evening, hon. Mermaer and City Council.
I am a consent of a general president, our Arvin Police Officer Associate.
Good evening, hon. Mermaer and City Council.
I am a consent of a general president of Arvin Police Officer Association.
I sat in here before you in support of this resolution.
As you are aware, this canine program was approved back in January of 2023.
If you haven't heard, the canine program has experienced a plight of issues internally.
I work for a personnel, training and liability issues.
This dog and specific was originally issued to one officer when the canine program was established.
This officer already had issues internally with the canine supervisor.
As a result, these issues continued when he became a canine handler with this supervisor
of being directly assigned to him for the canine program.
He resigned within a couple of months.
At that time, the acting chief promised the APOA that another officer would get this canine.
That did not happen.
Even though he promised directly one officer, he assigned it to another supervisor.
Any time there is a use of force, you always want the officers involved in use of force that you want.
You need that supervisor to be supervising and making sure officers are following policy and the law.
How can you do that when you have two supervisors at that time being the canine handlers?
Recently, a city manager is not here.
During negotiations, we found out that the police department doesn't have a canine policy.
The canine policy is not in place because there was never a meeting conferred between the department and our police officer's association as required by law.
Technically, as of right now, we are operating a canine program with no canine policy.
Huge liability issues, especially right now at what the city facing financial issues.
It is my estimation that this program has cost the city over $250,000 to operate.
If I could have a couple more seconds.
Take your time.
Not only that, but the training, regarding that.
My as a result, the canine was a big issue a couple of years ago.
They were trying to spend it throughout the state.
As a result, the created law and post our governing licensing board for a piece officer's
created a standard back in April 2025.
It's my understanding that these standards, I still not been put in place internally.
Again, creating financial or liability issues.
Back on the staff report, if you see back in January 2023.
In the staff report, they put that they would aggressively go after a grant for this canine program.
I don't know why that was approved if we know grants.
Before we spend any money, you have to get the grant first because grants are very specific.
Very strict on how to spend that money.
From my understanding, talking to say a manager a couple of months ago, we still haven't obtained this grant.
I am urging, not only to approve this resolution, but to temporarily suspend or terminate the canine program until we find a safe and reliable way to carry out this program.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Are there any questions from the council?
I do have a question.
You just brought up to our attention that we don't have a canine policy in place?
Correct.
So why wasn't that brought up when we first approved the canines?
Like, why didn't you bring it to our attention after the fact?
Good question.
So our department operates off of lexipo.
Lexipo creates these template type policies for the department, which is in place right now.
But it was never meant to confer what the APOA because the city never proposed it to us.
This was brought up to city manager and acting chief Gazerian at that time for a meeting confer, but it never occurred.
And okay, so never was followed through.
Correct.
The city never proposed it to the APOA to implement it.
So as of right now, there is no policy.
Okay, not just the policy itself for the use of it, but it was never proposed to us exactly what these canine handlers were receiving.
As far as, like, takeum cars, overtime, any specialty pay that was never officially proposed to the APOA.
So as a result, we are in talks right now during negotiations.
You know, what are the standards right now and what's the plan with this canine program?
Because again, it was never brought up to us formally.
And as I recall in that, I don't really remember it's a little vague.
But when the first, the canine was first brought up, no one had an issue with it.
I believe all the PD officers are off for it.
So by now, there's an issue.
Yeah, so I don't know where the information came because no survey was ever done by the POA or by the chief at that time or the police department.
So I'm not sure exactly where that came from.
Yeah.
But I will say that a lot of people were kind of excited at the time because, as you know, we had that silator for the pay raise.
And we really did believe that the grant was really going to come in for it.
And it was supposed to, like we said, it was supposed to be one officer and one sergeant.
Full time.
That I do recall.
Yes.
And I know the grant was going to come after the fact we were advised that once we approved it,
but they were going to apply for a grant to continue with the canine program.
Correct.
I do remember.
Yeah.
And I think that's where things kind of fell apart because things were going on.
And I could say within a couple months, we had one handler resigned.
And it never went back to another officer.
Okay.
Yeah.
So you're saying there is a policy in place.
It's just invalid because we didn't meet it in front with you guys.
It's just put in place, because that's lexipo.
And lexipo will automatically just put up just, they're like templates.
But it can't be enforced.
It's not used.
It's not trained on.
Because it's not legit.
It's just something lexipo automatically does for any type of subject for law enforcement policies.
Does that have an ingest in any, because we're going to go sheets?
Correct.
The next meeting is January 27th.
Okay.
So I'm hoping the city at that time has a proposal or a plan on what they want to do.
But it was officially sent to them via lexipo.
Because once I heard that, there was no policy.
I said, well, there's a template and that was sent to city manager in the city for review.
All right.
Thanks.
Are there any other questions?
So my question is, again, you know, I agree with council member Susan Riceman.
Why are you bringing up now?
Why am I bringing this up now?
Why are you bringing up now?
And the other part of this is, is during that period of time when they were on, you guys were on the council.
What?
Yes, correct.
And I'm sure that there was a staff recommendation.
Who did that staff recommendation come from?
Was it from the chief of police?
The city manager.
City manager made the staff recommendation.
Not the chief of police?
I believe it was at that time.
I think it was.
It was the city manager and the chief at that time, I believe.
So, so, you know, from my experience, the stuff that comes from the police department,
the staff recommendation usually comes from the chief.
And the city manager supports that recommendation from the chief.
Just like the, what's that grant we got right now?
No, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
Oh, no.
OK, look at the process there.
Where did it come from?
The police department.
Correct.
So, somewhere there's some wires crossed, definitely, because I know that the police chief should have been the one to make that recommendation.
Because he is the head of that department.
He knows the needs and the wants of the department.
So, but, in here in Newtalk, you're saying he wasn't aware of it and he didn't know anything about it.
And, you know, somewhere they dropped a ball and there's no policy in place.
I don't even know how that could even be.
Because the council.
I think what he's saying there is a policy in place, however, it was not, it's on that lexipol.
Yeah, it's just a template.
It's not a template.
It's a template.
It's not something we can use because, again, there's no meaning to infer.
And those templates are supposed to be then kind of revised based on the agency operation.
So, it's just a standard little template.
It's not technically officially a policy.
It's just in there as a template.
So, when did you guys let City Manager know about this?
December's last negotiation.
I mean, I don't have exact date.
So, it's just this December and we've had the dogs for how long.
I'm assuming January 2023, somewhere around that time we got him.
Okay.
Yeah.
But, it's news to us that there is never any, that the City Manager didn't know that there is no policy.
That should have been known for a while already.
And that should have been something I was proposed to the pay POS in the beginning.
If they wanted to go through with the lexipol one or revise it.
Well, wish you had a legal council here.
Well, what you're saying is that the...
The concerns that you've laid out to us are the Canine Unit was approved. It was a staff recommendation.
The staff recommendation was to approve the Canine Unit and that there were going to be grants that were going to cover the costs of the Canine Unit,
but that was not followed through. There were no grants that were applied and received to support the cost of the Canine Unit.
Correct.
There's no grant. I'm not sure if they're waiting for the grants that proposed something to the APOA or what they're waiting for, when they plan to propose this to the APOA or do a meeting confer.
I'm not sure exactly if they're waiting for that grant.
In addition to that, you're saying that there was no policy that was proposed to APOA for it to be finalized, approved,
and then have the officers trained on that that never happened and that that should have happened.
Correct.
And that the city manager was well aware of it.
And this is something that has been raised with the city manager and the previous chief of police.
Correct. Yes.
Okay.
And then the thing with the policy, that's something that's supposed to be proposed from the city to the APOA.
The APOA wouldn't create this or propose this to the city because it's a management right to create this gain.
That's a come from the city.
Right.
Can it?
So let me make a recommendation.
I make a recommendation that we table it.
Well, we can vote anything.
Well, okay.
Because, you know, he's standing there telling us that there is no policy in place that's been approved and we're operating.
Other than the guidelines.
So when we typically suspend.
Mayor, Mayor, sorry for me.
So the item that's on the agenda is different has nothing to do with the policy.
Yeah, this has to do with the grant.
Yeah.
That's something that can you can add to the agenda in the future.
Right.
This item is solely regarding toggle, toggle and surplus and selling it to chapter.
That's what we are considering for this item here.
And so if the council wants to consider the policy or any other changes to the program,
terminating the program, whatever it may be, that will need to be considered out of the future meeting.
That's right.
So we could go ahead and add that to a future agenda to discuss clearly.
We need to bring in our council and and addresses what the city manager.
So I would suggest then, you know, thank you for these concerns that you've raised and put on the record for us.
If we could move with the item that we have before us and the recommendation from staff.
Is that we.
Except chapters offer.
Because this dog is connected to a specific handler.
There's no longer with our city.
So can I have a motion to move forward with this recommendation?
Why don't I think mayor?
Sorry.
I would recommend that in the future if you come up if you find any discrepancies.
And if you have already let the city manager know and six months go by year,
a year, shouldn't go that long and there's no.
No, I guess remedy.
Then I think you should let the council know.
So we're aware of it.
So we can know that in the future we'll know how to remedy a certain issue.
So we could be a lease compliant.
There may be a separate process for that.
We can process through the unions and not specifically the employee to the council.
That's right.
So that's something we can again discuss with the city manager and the city attorney.
Okay.
I make a motion.
And just like my friend, I was just.
I brought up the any in the cannot program as to the reason why I'm supporting this resolution.
Yeah.
Thank you so much.
Okay.
Great.
So do we have a second.
Great.
We have a motion and a second motion by.
Okay.
I'm in support of of selling the dog.
But I'm also in support of the K9 unit.
And I believe that the funds that are coming from this dog should stay with that K9 period.
The 10,000 that's coming.
It should go into the fund for the K9.
It goes into any way.
For the current dog.
Okay.
It should be ear not for that purpose.
Now that's my motion.
Do I get a second on that?
Yeah.
All right.
Can we call the roll?
Okay.
So there is a motion from councilmember from Mayor Potem Reyes and councilmember Horton.
Are we is that one dead?
Let's go.
Yes.
We're going to approve to sell the K9.
The direction to the city manager is to direct the funds to support additional training for the existing K9.
Okay.
That's requested by Mr. Tarver.
Yes.
The council.
Seconded by Mr. Horton.
Okay.
Councilmember Tarver.
Yes.
Councilmember Perez.
Yes.
Councilmember Horton.
Mayor Potem Reyes.
Yes.
Mayor Calderon.
Yes.
Motion carries by zero.
We are going to move into close session.
And following close session.
We will be back again for the last action item on the agenda today.
Two items.
Yes.
And we will be directing the city manager based on this conversation to include some additional background.
If everyone would like on the K9 policy, we could add it to the following agenda so that we could get clear on that as a discussion item.
Would you like that information?
Yes.
Great.
Okay.
Yeah.
For the agenda for the 27th.
Yeah.
Just so that we could have clear.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
Call the close session item.
Public Employee Performance Evaluation.
Government code 54957B City Manager.
We were going to close session.
Are there any comments from the public on this item?
Seeing none.
The meeting will stay on and we will be back following this discussion.
Thank you.