As the United States economy struggles, and notwithstanding the federal government's various programs to help stimulate the economy, there can be no doubt that agency heads and administrators are feeling the heat and pressure to reduce their budgets. Of course, the reduced budgets affect all aspects of law enforcement operations, but budget reductions can have particularly severe implications for airborne law enforcement units. Past history has shown that once a police airborne unit has been disbanded and the assets sold off, it is very rare for the unit to ever be re-established.

In the past year, several agencies have disbanded their aviation units or grounded them until budgets improve. Some recent good news has come out of Kansas. After grounding their helicopter in August, a council member from Topeka, Kansas has proposed re-establishing the aviation unit. According to a copy of the resolution submitted to the city clerk's office, it proposes using Topeka Police Department's asset forfeiture and drug tax stamp violation fund to pay for operating the helicopter unit. The bad news? The resolution only proposes this funding for one year.

There is no doubt that aviation can be expensive. The cost of parts and maintenance can certainly have sticker shock. When sharpening the budget axe, many mayors, council people and administrators place their aim squarely on the shoulders of the airborne law enforcement unit and other higher ticket items. Are there alternatives? Is there other ways to reduce aviation operating costs? Can the airborne law enforcement program be saved?

There are several approaches that many municipalities and agencies have used in the past to help reduce costs. One of the more popular approaches is to form a regional aviation unit. Aviation services might not be required on a daily basis in a particular jurisdiction but when a FLIR or night sun is required, it can literally mean the difference between life and death. Several municipalities joining together can enjoy the benefits of airborne law enforcement services without having the burden of all the costs. The major obstacles to this model are how we do equitably and fairly share the cost?

If agency A utilizes the services of the aviation unit 100 times a year while agency B only uses it 20 times a year, there must be a way to fairly spread out the cost and not simply split it 50/50. Perhaps consider an annual fee to buy in to the regional airborne law enforcement unit and then pay a specific fee for service based on demand. This way each agency could feel comfortable in having the aircraft available but not paying primarily for their neighboring jurisdiction to use it.