Thread by @UCBRachelB

#OakMtg Thread: Public safety, Tues, 3/28, is at 4p this week (not 6p like last week). us02web.zoom.us/j/81227320221

You can comment if you're observing by Zoom, but you'll need to email the clerk, say you'd like to make comment at the 3/28 4p Public Safety meeting, and give your Zoom name / phone, plus the agenda item you want to speak on, before your item's called. [e-mail]

(You can also email the clerk if you can't attend the meeting but have an opinion about one or more of the agenda items. But in that case, you need to email [e-mail] by no later than 4p Monday 3/27.)

What's on the agenda? A memo of understanding with the ATF about access to the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network; a grant for tech and training; an update on MACRO from the Fire Dept.

The thing I'm particularly interested in, though, is the return of the helicopter maintenance contract. (A refresher from last month: OPD wants 850K / year over the next 2 years for maintenance on its 2 helicopters, collectively known as ARGUS en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_Pan…

Public Safety committee members had lots of questions for OPD presenters last time this contract came up (eg, what does training cost)? The new supplemental report included in the agenda packet ignores some of those questions outright and gives partial answers to others

The supplemental report from February says a helicopter is requested over 40 times a day, “not counting outside agency requests.” The March supplemental report does not elaborate on outside agency requests.

Who else is requesting the OPD helicopter, what percent of time in air is devoted to the needs of outside agencies, and what staff, fuel, and wear-and-tear costs are those outside agencies reimbursing?

I ask because we've seen flight paths extending into Orinda and flight paths encompassing San Francisco. If those are on behalf of agencies w/o air support of their own, it's fair to ask what *they're* contributing toward maintenance, fuel and staff costs

Speaking of maintenance, fuel and staff costs: we were quoted $600/hr in air for maintenance and fuel, not inclusive of staff time, in February's packet. Per Lt William Febel at the 2/27 mtg, the heli flies an average of 4 hrs/day (it varies- more on weekends)

A link to the helicopter portion of the 2/27 public safety meeting, in case it's useful to you:

https://twitter.com/UCBRachelB/status/1630324494236807168

You'll notice one committee member asked how many of the 27 missing person cases in which the helicopter was used were solved *because* of the helicopter. Here's how OPD answered that question in the supplemental report they included for Tuesday's meeting:

“ARGUS assisted with 27 missing persons during 2022. Unfortunately, OPD did not have a tracking system in place for the disposition of these investigations. Upon purchase of a new aircraft, a tracking mechanism could be developed if desired.”

Can we just take a moment to appreciate the absolute gall of that response?

A nonprofit that asked Council for more $ would be asked to show that the $ Council had already given them was used as agreed BEFORE authorizing a major new purpose. Council can direct OPD to track the disposition of missing person cases *whether or not* they get a new plane.

Having watched ongoing implemention of the local and state militarized equipment ordinances at OPD: they are going to complain that collecting data about their use of a piece of equipment, and writing a report for Council / the Police Commission / the public, is onerous.

IMO if writing use reports is onerous- if it's onerous to account for why using it is *effective*- you're using the equipment too much!

OPD should want to know what technology, procedures, decisions, and actions are pivotal in solving a missing persons case, because that knowledge will help solve future missing persons cases.

You don't need to have a new aircraft in order to track whether your existing aircraft use is actually helping solve missing persons cases: you just need to have curiosity and a desire to do better.

There are municipalities with air support policies! Anaheim PD has a policy setting out the terms of department aircraft use. LAPD, which is largely responsible for departments' belief that air support is essential, at least sets out the terms for ride-alongs in dept aircraft.

IIRC the only policies related to OPD's helicopter are policies governing its use of FLIR cameras contained in the heli, and retention of data from them- and that's thanks to the Privacy Commission.

OPD isn't used to being asked to justify their helicopter use, and it shows in how they've been unprepared for questions at the last two public safety meetings where the helicopter maintenance contract was discussed.

Emissions for the helicopters are listed at 464.2 lb CO2 / hour. Given use figures from the last meeting, that's about 169,433 pounds a year. OPD says the requested waitlisted DA62MPP fixed wing craft would “reduce emissions by nearly 66%.”

Just saying, not flying would reduce emissions by 100% and would also save money.

The EPA calculates the average annual emissions for a gas-powered passenger vehicle (assuming 22 mpg mileage, at 8,818.492 pounds. They calculate it in metric tonnes because they are sensible, but I did the conversion for you.

If you are a person consciously trying to lower your emissions impact, you likely generate substantially less. But OPD is generating plenty in your name.

To their credit, the fixed wing craft OPD is really hoping to be approved to buy in a couple years does not run on avgas the way Alameda County Sheriff's Cessna 206s do. (Avgas is now the primary source of lead contamination.)

HOWEVER: while Jet A is unleaded, burning any fuel releases particulates as well as CO2, and the department's emissions statement doesn't reflect that. Studies near SeaTac and LAX have implicated ultrafine particles from jet fuel in a range of negative health outcomes

For more on that: ce.washington.edu/news/article/2…

Some other open questions that the supplemental report doesn't answer: Would OPD seek to buy two such fixed-wing craft, in keeping with its practice of having one available for flight while the other is being repaired? (The price quoted in the packet was for one.)

Would the cameras OPD currently uses from the helicopters be usable from a fixed-wing craft? Federal regulations about how low an aircraft can be, particularly in an area that is classed as "congested," are more stringent for fixed-wing craft than for helicopters.

On those regulations, see faa.gov/about/office_o…

It's not rare for OPD helicopters to fly below 500 feet. I'm by no means opposed to OPD taking a higher flight path- that seems likely to be less disruptive! But if cameras needed to be upgraded/replaced to accommodate a higher flight path, that's an additional cost.

I've been thinking about OPD's helicopter use for about a year, so I've got a fair bit of steam worked up about this. But I think it combines a number of issues- cost, emissions, noise, surveillance- that matter to a range of Oakland residents. Worth scrutiny, IMO.

Lastly for now: We are looking at the kind of General Fund shortfall that may freeze staffing in departments with far greater staffing deficits than OPD has. That's the context for the increase in what OPD wants to spend on helicopter maintenance.

Excitement about a piece of gear at the time of purchase doesn't always map onto that gear justifying its purchase after the fact. How much did Starchase tech cost? And how effective has it been at decreasing the department's perceived need to engage in deadly high-speed chases?

Community-based organizations helping host Town Nights for the Department of Violence Prevention are asked to account for their use of funds. I want the department to justify its use of the helicopters better than they're doing now: it's only fair.