HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 12 - Response to Grand Jury Report - Joint Agency Dispatch
Department Name: Police
Cost Center: 8001
For Agenda of: December 8, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Jeff Smith, Interim Chief of Police
Prepared By: Brian Amoroso, Operations Captain
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT – JOINT AGENCY DISPATCH:
BETTER TOGETHER?
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the County of San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Agency Response to Report
(Attachment A) regarding contracting City Police and Fire dispatching services to the County
Sheriff and CalFire.
DISCUSSION
On November 3rd, 2020, the City of San Luis Obispo received a report from the San Luis Obispo
Grand Jury, titled “Joint Agency Dispatch, Better Together?” (Attachment B). The City was
asked to provide a response to Recommendation #1.
R1. The Cities of Atascadero, Grover Beach, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San
Luis Obispo, should each request a proposal from the San Luis Obispo County
Sheriff and Cal Fire to provide contract dispatch services and present it as an
option in future budgets.
The City recently completed a joint dispatch consolidation study in May 2020 (Attachment C),
which researched the feasibility of a combined multi-agency dispatch approach or contracting the
services to the San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Office and Cal Fire. Based on the information gathered
during this process, it was determined that consolidation was not an advantageous option in cost-
savings, service levels, or decision-making authority. The Grand Jury response document details
these conclusions (Attachment D).
Policy Context
A response to the Grand Jury report is required by the Law Enforcement Agency Head, the
Mayor, and the governing City and County advisory boards per California Penal Code 933
(Attachment E).
“No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the
operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the
governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of
Item 12
Packet Page 201
the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters
under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or
agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section
914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court,
with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer
or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head
supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall
forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who
impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be
placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county
clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices.
One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by,
and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years.”
Chief Smith’s written response to the Grand Jury report was sent to Presiding Judge Jacqueline
Duffy on November 16, 2020.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year:
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
There is no impact on the City’s General Fund associated with this action. Any training cost
resulting from the recommendation would be absorbed by the Police department’s budget
appropriation.
Item 12
Packet Page 202
ALTERNATIVES
Council may direct staff to change the Grand Jury response and continue discussions to consolidate
dispatching services.
Attachments:
a - Agency Response to Report
b - Summary of Joint Dispatch: Better Together?
c - Final Executive Summary Report - SLO Dispatch Consolidation
d - Grand Jury Response
e - Penal Code 933
Item 12
Packet Page 203
Item 12
Packet Page 204
Submitted November 5, 2020 1
JOINT AGENCY DISPATCH: BETTER TOGETHER?
SUMMARY
Improvements in technology, budget constraints and discussions about a co-located dispatch center
have led several agencies to consider combining dispatch operations for public safety agencies in
San Luis Obispo County. There are several examples of successful joint dispatch operations in our
county. Cal Fire provides dispatch service to all the local agencies in the unincorporated areas of
the county and the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Morro Bay and Pismo Beach. The
County Sheriff provides 911 service and Law Enforcement Dispatch service to the Cities of Arroyo
Grande and Morro Bay through contracts. The contract expense formula for sheriff dispatch
service provided significantly lower cost for both cities. Our interviews revealed that contracting
agencies are satisfied with the service they receive. They note that separate fire and police dispatch
services are superior. Additional dispatch capacity relieves stress in busy periods as well as the
ability to stage or send interagency help when necessary. This action provides faster response for
major incidents.
Several cities were considering a joint dispatch operation as well, with the city of San Luis Obispo
providing the service. This effort was abandoned after the initial findings indicated it was fiscally
unfeasible. Despite a net savings of over $500,000 in personnel costs it was not advantageous to
all four agencies. Primarily, this was a result of the 16%-32% difference in pay scales between the
agencies. Paso Robles and Atascadero would incur higher costs while the city of San Luis Obispo
and California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) would receive considerable savings.
The Grand Jury found that Cal Fire and County Sheriff have provided equal or superior dispatch
service for less cost to several agencies in our county. The real benefit for taxpayers and residents
countywide is the financial and operational efficiencies of a joint agency dispatch service. We
recommended the Sheriff provide long term pricing for dispatch service to the remaining cities in
the county, one with and one without the new co-dispatch center. Each of the cities should present
this as a future budget option.
Item 12
Packet Page 205
Submitted November 5, 2020 2
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
Improvements in technology, budget constraints and discussions about a co-located dispatch center
have led several agencies to consider combined dispatch operations for the public safety agencies
in San Luis Obispo County. In this report the San Luis Obispo Grand Jury (SLOGJ) reviewed
dispatch operations throughout the county for potential financial, operational, and service
efficiencies that may be achieved by combining dispatch operations. Although discussion about
the co-located dispatch center was part of the original purpose for this report, the relocation and
redesign during the investigation made accurate information unavailable at this time.
METHOD/PROCEDURE
To obtain information for this report the SLOGJ requested and received budgets for dispatch
operations, personnel requirements, and call volumes for all seven cities, County Sheriff and Cal
Fire. We interviewed several public safety chiefs and toured both the County Sheriff and Cal Fire
dispatch centers. The 2018-19 fiscal year was our primary time frame for comparison. Due to
differences in budget detail and definitions for “call for service,” exact comparisons were not
possible. Some cities included administration and tech service costs while others did not. We
included 911 calls and total calls for service in our report, but used total calls for service as the
best proxy for call volume comparisons. We also studied how dispatch operations work when two
or more services might be required (i.e. fire and ambulance for a medical emergency). We were
unable to find extensive cost information for the current Co-Dispatch Center plan.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
In 2013, the SLOGJ issued a report entitled “Consolidation of Public Safety Dispatch Systems.”
It focused on the Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach attempt to consolidate their police departments
and, when that failed, on the potential for consolidation of their public safety dispatch operations.
They recommended “The City Councils of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach should consider
consolidating the public safety dispatch systems of their respective cities.”
Item 12
Packet Page 206
Submitted November 5, 2020 3
In 2014, Arroyo Grande and Morro Bay moved forward on contracting with the County Sheriff
for Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP aka 911) and Law Enforcement dispatch. Grover Beach
retained its PSAP and dispatch operation, and took over full dispatch of the Five Cities Fire
Authority (FCFA) including Arroyo Grande and Oceano. In 2018, the FCFA began contracting
for dispatch service with Cal Fire.
Recently, there has been discussion of a new co-dispatch center that would house both Cal Fire
and the County Sheriff, with the capacity to provide service to all the cities and agencies in SLO
County. In addition, there has been discussion and a feasibility study about the pote ntial for a
smaller consolidation of just Paso Robles, Atascadero, Cal Poly University and the city of San
Luis Obispo. Based on these changes and renewed interest, the SLOGJ is once again, reviewing
the potential for consolidation of public safety dispatch throughout the county.
NARRATIVE
Dispatchers are the starting point for most public safety events and nearly all emergencies.
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) combines a number of technologies that greatly enhance a
dispatcher’s ability to handle higher volumes of calls and provide real-time information about
incidents and the assets that are available to respond.
Not long ago a dispatcher would require detailed knowledge about the area into which they are
dispatching. Today, thanks to Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, a dispatcher is
instantly provided with information about the location of the caller and the nearest police or fire
personnel available to respond. Through mapping and traffic analysis CAD provides the fastest
route for emergency responders. CAD allows one dispatcher to take a 911 call and collect the
information concerning the call. In the case of cross service type calls, this information is
transferred through the CAD system to the correct agency dispatcher. The transfer is based on
geographic data related to the address of the incident. In the case of medical calls, the call is routed
to the ambulance dispatcher and to fire dispatch who sends the nearest available fire crew. This
ensures the fastest possible response with adequate personnel for the situation.
Item 12
Packet Page 207
Submitted November 5, 2020 4
The public has come to expect timely response to emergency calls. The public expects their 911
calls to be answered instantly, handled professionally, and with service personnel arriving with all
the key information necessary to assist them. Although dispatchers excel at multi-tasking and
prioritizing, a single dispatcher can easily be over-taxed, handling multiple calls while also
assisting officers and firefighters in the field. The combination of new technology and varying
intensity of demand for service, make public safety dispatch a natural area for combining the
dispatch service of multiple law enforcement and fire service agencies. San Luis Obispo County
already has several examples of successful integration of dispatch for multiple agencies.
Cal Fire provides dispatch service to all the unincorporated areas of the county including areas like
Templeton and San Miguel. Through contracts, they provide dispatch services to the cities of
Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, and Grover Beach. In total, Cal Fire dispatches 34 fire stations and
crews in SLO County. SLOGJ toured their dispatch center located at their county headquarters on
Highway 1. They normally have two or three dispatchers plus a Battalion Commander (BC) on
duty and can add more when conditions demand it. They do not provide PSAP (911) service
directly, but did dispatch response to 12,863 calls for service (medical and fire) in 2018. The BC
is empowered to send additional personnel when the situation warrants it.
Cal Fire is due to start a long-planned remodel of their headquarters in 2020. They did not include
a new dispatch center in that plan in expectation that the co-dispatch center would be available. In
the interim they will be moving their dispatch operation into a temporary location until either the
co-located dispatch center is available or a new Cal Fire dispatch center is planned and funded by
the state. The staff indicated that this could be “a long process.”
SLO County Sheriff provides PSAP (911) services to all the unincorporated areas of the County
and by contract to the cities of Arroyo Grande and Morro Bay. In addition to dispatching sheriff
deputies, they dispatch law enforcement officers from those two cities. In 2018 they received
134,000 calls for service in total, and dispatched nearly 24,000 emergency ambulance calls.
SLOGJ toured the Sheriff Dispatch center located in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC),
and made several follow-up inquiries. They have four dispatchers, a supervisor and a watch
Item 12
Packet Page 208
Submitted November 5, 2020 5
commander on duty. Each of the agencies (County Sheriff, Arroyo Grande PD, Morro Bay PD and
San Luis Ambulance Service) have a dedicated dispatcher. Any dispatcher can answer a 911 call
from any of the PSAP areas they serve. The call is then posted to the correct agency dispatch er,
and when necessary, backup or additional dispatch service is provided. The Watch Commander
does not provide direction to the officers in Arroyo Grande and Morro Bay, but is available to
monitor a developing situation in those communities and reposition resources in case they are
requested. In total Sheriff dispatch has 21 full time equivalent (FTE) employees (not counting the
Watch Commanders) including the five contracted for Arroyo Grande and Morro Bay. San Luis
Ambulance receives emergency dispatch service at no cost from the Sheriff dispatch center.
The Sheriff dispatch center uses approximately a third of the EOC building. The remainder of the
building is reserved for emergency operations in the event of an accident at the Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Plant. Staff noted this building was built in 1984 and does not meet a number of
current code requirements. Their space allocation is not sufficient to provide dispatch service for
all seven cities. In the event the Co-dispatch Center is not available, there is a contingency plan
that could provide service to all seven cities.
Both Cal Fire and SLO County Sheriff use a similar methodology to develop the pricing element
for their contract service. The county sheriff dispatch service contract accounts for the direct
expense of a dedicated dispatcher for each agency without any additional expense for management,
administration or, of special note, building rent or capital outlay. Arroyo Grande requires three
FTE’s for a total of $393,658 and Morro Bay two FTE’s for a total of $267,436.
The Cal Fire contract adds all direct dispatch costs without any additional expense for management
administration or rent. Those costs are divided based on the total calls -for-service from each
agency. Morro Bay pays $71,086 and Arroyo Grande pays $77,867.
Arroyo Grande and Morro Bay Police chiefs’ report they are satisfied with the service they receive
and that it is better than their in-house service, due to having multiple dispatchers available when
needed, and having the fire dispatch service provided by a separate agency. Both reported that
when backup is required there is better coordination than was possible with multiple law
enforcement dispatch operations.
Item 12
Packet Page 209
Submitted November 5, 2020 6
In the first six months of operation there were a few issues that were quickly resolved. Any issues
today are handled between supervisors with a simple phone call or email.
Both agencies note that it would be difficult to bring back in-house dispatch service, costing over
a million dollars and requiring a year or more of lead time.
Similar approval was voiced by the FCFA Chief. Although expense was essentially the same, the
Cal Fire dispatchers are trained and dedicated to fire and medical response. With better technology
they deliver superior emergency response. In addition, a Battalion Commander is available 24/7
to determine if additional resources are needed. This ensures adequate response from multiple
agencies when required.
Cal Fire is under a general contract to provide fire services, including dispatch, to Pismo Beach
and San Luis Obispo County. The county then subcontracts out the fire dispatch service provided
by Cal Fire to other agencies. In addition, the county contracts Law Enforcement Dispatch services
through the County Sheriff’s Department to Arroyo Grande and Morro Bay.
There are many factors affecting 911 and public safety calls for service from the various agencies
in SLO County. A few of these factors are population, demographics, tourism, job concentration,
and homeless populations. In 2018, calls for service from the seven cities in SLO County varied
from just over 13,000 for Morro Bay to nearly 60,000 for the city of San Luis Obispo. The
unincorporated areas of the county generated nearly 100,000 calls for service. The 911 calls ha d
a more dramatic distribution (911 calls are a subset of calls for service). Morro Bay totaled just
over 1,000, San Luis Obispo over 19,000, and the unincorporated areas of the county over 43,000.
It should be noted that the definition for calls for service may vary from agency to agency, some
include calls from traffic stops, others included all the calls created in the CAD system.
A key number to note is the total base personnel (dispatchers plus supervision without management
or computer tech support), in each of the cities that have in-house dispatch operations. With the
exception of the city of SLO, which has 12 FTE’s, the other cities have six to eight FTEs, despite
Item 12
Packet Page 210
Submitted November 5, 2020 7
a wide range of call levels. For example, the city of Atascadero, with a call for s ervice volume of
just over 27,000, has seven FTE’s and the city of Grover Beach, with a call for service volume just
over 16,000, has six FTEs.
On the expense side, the cities of Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Atascadero and Paso Robles pay in
the $650,000-$850,000 range for their base dispatch personnel. Using a conservative figure of
$100,000 for maintenance and management of their own PSAP and radio systems, the minimum
cost for a PSAP dispatch operation would be approximately $750,000 – $950,000.
The cities of San Luis Obispo, Atascadero, Paso Robles and Cal Poly University hired City Gate
Associates to provide a Fire/Police Merger Analysis. Initial findings indicated that the merger was
fiscally unfeasible, Phase I of the study was reported in May of 2020 and the Grand Jury received
a copy in June, 2020.
The report highlights several key hurdles to the merging (by contract or JPA) of dispatch
operations. The first is the 16-31% disparity in salary and benefits between agencies. For example,
Atascadero dispatcher's (Support Services Technician) salary and benefits are 27% lower than that
of a dispatcher in the City of San Luis Obispo. Second, this analysis allocated cost based on the
percentage of “total workload”. As a result, there was a total savings of over $500,000 in personnel
costs, however it would not be evenly distributed. The cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles would
pay over $320,000 and Cal Poly and the city of SLO would save $830,000. The analysis noted that
there were solutions for the reliable radio communication between the various agencies but did not
estimate any expense to achieve them. They also noted concerns by the Fire Chiefs about, 911
performance standards, dispatcher training, and dispatch of resources into other jurisdictions.
CONCLUSIONS
Since the Grand Jury report “Consolidation for Dispatch Operation for Public Safety” in 2012,
the cities of Arroyo Grande and Morro Bay have worked through the governance and operational
concerns and contracted with the County Sheriff and Cal Fire for dispatch service that is less
expensive and is equal or better than their in-house service.
Item 12
Packet Page 211
Submitted November 5, 2020 8
It is likely that the similar sized cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach could achieve similar
results for their PSAP and law enforcement dispatch. For the cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles
to achieve similar financial results, the County Sheriff would need to mitigate the difference in
pay scales. The city of San Luis Obispo has similar pay scales to the County Sheriff and would
likely realize some financial benefit from joint dispatch.
Beyond expense, there are significant service level benefits from joint dispatch. Dispatchers
trained and dedicated to either fire or police operations provide a safer environment for first
responders and improved service to the public. Better coordination during major incidents, where
mutual or emergency aid is required, will improve response times and ensure timely additional
support. The higher capacity of a larger operation will reduce the impact from turnover, illness or
injury. There are challenges as well, but the recent success of agencies who contract for dispatch
service indicates they can be met and still deliver more cost effective and operational service.
FINDINGS
F1. The cities of Atascadero, Grover Beach, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo
who operate their own PSAPs, could benefit financially and operationally by contracting
their dispatch operation with Cal Fire and the County Sheriff.
F2. The County Sheriff and Cal Fire have demonstrated that they can provide cost effective
and operational dispatch service that is equal or better to the smaller agencies in San
Luis Obispo county through contracting.
F3. The portion of the EOC building now allocated to County Sheriff Dispatch operations
is insufficient to provide dispatch service to all seven cities.
F4. A state-of-the-art dispatch center could be a benefit to the County Sheriff’s aging
building inventory, but the real benefit for taxpayers and residents countywide is the
financial and operational efficiencies of a joint agency dispatch service.
Item 12
Packet Page 212
Submitted November 5, 2020 9
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The Cities of Atascadero, Grover Beach, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis
Obispo, should each request a proposal from the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff and
Cal Fire to provide contract dispatch services and present it as an option in future
budgets.
R2. The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff and Cal Fire should modify their contingency plans
for dispatch to all seven cities into a viable alternative to the proposed co-dispatch
center.
R3. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors should require the San Luis Obispo
County Sheriff to provide a clear, long-term pricing for dispatch service with and
without the proposed co-dispatch center.
R4. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors should include the reallocation of
space in the EOC building for expanded dispatch operations in their current negotiations
with PG&E regarding the closing of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in 2025.
REQUIRED RESPONSES
The following people are required to respond to the findings and recommendations within the
timeframe shown and in accordance with the California Penal Code Section 933.05:
The City of Atascadero shall respond to R1
The City of Grover Beach shall respond to R1
The City of Pismo Beach shall respond to R1
The City of Paso Robles shall respond to R1
The City of San Luis Obispo shall respond to R1
San Luis Obispo County Sheriff shall respond to R2 and R3
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R3 and R4
Item 12
Packet Page 213
Submitted November 5, 2020 10
The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior 322
Court by January 5, 2021. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to
323 the Grand Jury.
AGENCY RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
The Penal Code Section 933.05 that specifies the format and methodology for agency responses is
listed below. All agency respondents are required to respond to all findings and recommendations
in the following manner:
• If the respondent disagrees wholly or partially with an item, the respondent must elaborate on the
portion of the item that they disagree with, and provide an explanation.
• If a respondent notes that an item will be implemented in the future, the response must include a
timeframe for implementation.
• If a respondent notes that an item requires further analysis, the agency must include in the response
an explanation of and the scope of what will be studied and the timeframe needed for the study.
The timeframe for follow-up from the agency cannot exceed six months.
• If the item will not be implemented or is not reasonable, the respondent is required to provide a
detailed explanation.
933.05. Findings and Recommendations
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding
person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response
shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of
the reasons therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented
action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,
with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
Item 12
Packet Page 214
Submitted November 5, 2020 11
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
Presiding Judge Grand Jury
Presiding Judge Jacquelyn H. Duffy
Superior Court of California
1035 Palm Street Room 355
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 4910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
APPENDICES, ATTACHMENTS, BIBLIOGRAPHY, GLOSSARY AND
SUGGESTED READING
City of San Luis Obispo Merger Analysis May 14, 2020.
Item 12
Packet Page 215
Executive Summary Report Page 1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FIRE/POLICE DISPATCH MERGER ANALYSIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT
May 14, 2020
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The City of San Luis Obispo (San Luis Obispo), in partnership with the City of Atascadero
(Atascadero), City of Paso Robles (Paso Robles), and California Polytechnic State University (Cal
Poly), retained Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) in early 2019 to evaluate the opportunities and
constraints in merging some or all of the partner jurisdictions’ fire and police dispatch services
into a single, shared dispatch facility at the San Luis Obispo Police Department Communications
Center. Over the ensuing months, Citygate gathered and reviewed data from the four dispatch
centers and conducted interviews with each dispatch centers’ staff. Citygate also analyzed current
and projected near-term future workload for each jurisdiction, as well as conducted a comparative
compensation analysis. An on-site briefing of the initial findings for key partner executives was
provided on November 15, 2019, followed by additional compensation and workload analyses as
requested. After providing updated compensation and workload analyses results on January 9,
2020, Citygate was informed of the study partners’ decision to conclude the study at Phase I given
the initial findings of a merger being fiscally unfeasible in the near term. This executive summary
report summarizes Citygate’s work and analyses conducted.
2. FINDINGS SUMMARY
Citygate’s Phase I merged dispatch center analysis yields the following findings:
Finding #1: In a merger, agency-specific non-dispatch-related duties would need to be
reallocated to other personnel in Atascadero, Cal Poly, and Paso Robles.
Finding #2: Multiple solutions are available to provide reliable radio communications between
Atascadero and Paso Robles and the proposed merged dispatch center in San Luis
Obispo.
Item 12
Packet Page 216
Executive Summary Report Page 2
Finding #3: The partner agencies’ Fire Chiefs have concerns regarding coordination of multiple
fire agency dispatching to be considered in any proposed consolidation model.
Finding #4: Cal Poly provides unique, non-dispatch-related services to the campus to be
considered in any proposed consolidation model.
Finding #5: By hour of day, telephone call workload is consistent across the four study partner
agencies.
Finding #6: Staffing needed for a merged dispatch center is 10 fewer personnel than currently
utilized in the four study partners’ communications centers.
Finding #7: Leave-behind, non-dispatch-related duties would require an estimated additional
1.0 to 2.0 full-time equivalent personnel each for Atascadero, Cal Poly, and Paso
Robles, effectively using many of the saved positions and reducing merger cost
savings.
Finding #8: The San Luis Obispo Police Department Communications Center would adequately
accommodate the additional staffing needed for a merged dispatch center, with
some modest interior remodeling to meet additional space utilization needs for all
the needed support/supervision spaces.
Finding #9: Total current average communications center compensation in Atascadero, Cal
Poly, and Paso Robles ranges from 16 percent to 32 percent less than current
average San Luis Obispo compensation by comparable position.
Finding #10: Projected merged dispatch center personnel costs compared to current personnel
costs by agency range from $558,000 less for San Luis Obispo to $273,000 more
for Paso Robles.
Finding #11: Total merged dispatch center costs range from $496,000 less than current personnel
costs for San Luis Obispo to $336,000 more than current personnel costs for Paso
Robles, with a net aggregate savings over current personnel costs of $263,500.
3. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Citygate proposed a two-phased approach to this study, with Phase I evaluating the following high-
level, potential-deal-breaker issues affecting the proposed dispatch center consolidation:
◆ Service issues specific to Cal Poly
◆ Technical communications issues
◆ Fire agency issues
Item 12
Packet Page 217
Executive Summary Report Page 3
◆ Current and projected near-term future dispatch center workload
◆ Projected merged dispatch center workload
◆ Merged dispatch center staffing needs
◆ Merged dispatch center space needs
◆ Macro-level comparative compensation analysis
◆ Projected merged dispatch center costs and comparison to current costs
If the issues identified in Phase I were deemed resolvable by the study partners, Phase II would
provide technical implementation support to include:
◆ Exact personnel costs and impact bargaining
◆ CalPERS issues
◆ Employee health care impacts
◆ Technology conversion issues and costs
◆ Governance alternative to implement
◆ Final cost-share formula
◆ Final startup personnel costs
◆ Development of a comprehensive implementation plan
4. CURRENT DISPATCH CENTERS’ STAFFING AND COLLATERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The four dispatch communications centers currently have an aggregate total of 37 personnel with
a minimum staffing level of one Dispatcher at Cal Poly, Atascadero, and Paso Robles and two
Dispatchers in San Luis Obispo, as summarized in Table 1.
Item 12
Packet Page 218
Executive Summary Report Page 4
Table 1—Current Dispatch Center Staffing Summary
Agency Manager
Supervisor
/ Lead
Dispatcher
Dispatcher
(Full-Time)
Dispatcher
(Part-Time) Total
Minimum
Shift
Staffing
Atascadero 0 1 6 0 7 1
Cal Poly 0 0 5 2 7 1
Paso Robles1 0 1 8 0 9 1
San Luis Obispo2 1 2 11 0 14 2
Total 1 4 30 2 37 5
1 Supervisor not located in communications center
2 Dedicated full-time Communications Center Manager
What follows is the current staffing and summary of Dispatcher responsibilities for each
communications center.
4.1 Atascadero
In addition to answering 9-1-1 and business line telephone calls, the Atascadero Police Department
Communications Center, as the primary public safety answering point (PSAP) for the City,
provides 24-hour dispatch and radio communications support for the City Police and Fire
Departments with a staff of seven personnel, including one lead Dispatcher and six full-time
Dispatchers. Daily staffing includes two Dispatchers from 10:00 am to 10:00 pm and one
Dispatcher from 10:00 pm to 10:00 am. The communications center is managed by a Police
Lieutenant as a collateral assigned responsibility. Atascadero Dispatchers have numerous non-
dispatch-related responsibilities, including but not limited to:
◆ Reports
◆ Evidence booking
◆ Front lobby counter reception
◆ Fingerprinting appointments
◆ Alarm code violations
◆ Vehicle releases
◆ Records management system (RMS) data entry
◆ Business license updates
Item 12
Packet Page 219
Executive Summary Report Page 5
4.2 Cal Poly
The Cal Poly Police Department Dispatch Center is the PSAP for the university campus and
provides 24-hour dispatch and radio communications support for campus police officers. Fire
services are contractually provided by the San Luis Obispo County Fire Department, which is
administered and dispatched by the CAL FIRE San Luis Obispo Unit. The communications center
has five full-time and two part-time/on-call Dispatchers under the supervision of a dispatch/records
Supervisor, with one Dispatcher on duty at all times, except from 2:00 pm to 10:00 pm on Friday
and Saturday when two Dispatchers are on duty. Campus Dispatchers have numerous collateral
responsibilities unique to the campus environment and small department size.
4.3 Paso Robles
Like Atascadero, the Paso Robles Police Department Communications Center is the primary PSAP
for the City. In addition to answering 9-1-1 and business line telephone calls, the communications
center provides 24-hour dispatch and radio communications support for the City Police and Fire
Departments with a staff of nine personnel, including one Supervisor and eight full-time
Dispatchers.1 Daily staffing includes two Dispatchers from 9:30 pm to 2:30 pm, and one
Dispatcher from 2:30 pm to 9:30 pm Paso Robles Dispatchers also have numerous collateral non-
dispatch-related duties and responsibilities similar to Atascadero and San Luis Obispo.
4.4 San Luis Obispo
Like the other three communications centers, the San Luis Obispo Police Department
Communications Center is the primary PSAP for the City and provides 24-hour dispatch and radio
communications support for the City Police and Fire Departments with a staff of 14 personnel,
including one dedicated Manager, two Supervisors, and 11 full-time Dispatchers. Minimum
staffing includes two Dispatchers; however, Supervisors can also perform as Dispatchers as needed
when on duty. San Luis Obispo Dispatchers also have collateral non-dispatch-related duties but
fewer than the other three centers due to the higher telephone and radio workload.
Finding #1: In a merger, agency-specific non-dispatch-related duties would need
to be reallocated to other personnel in Atascadero, Cal Poly, and
Paso Robles.
1 The Administrative Assistant to the Chief of Police serves as the communications center Supervisor and is also
responsible for supervising the Records Unit; the Administrative Assistant is not physically located in the
communications center.
Item 12
Packet Page 220
Executive Summary Report Page 6
5. TECHNICAL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES
One of the early issues addressed in this study involved radio communications between the
proposed merged dispatch center and Atascadero and Paso Robles. Each partner jurisdiction is
currently licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to utilize specific radio
frequency(s) for communications between its communications center and field resources. Due to
the limited radio frequency spectrum available for public safety use, the FCC must allocate
available frequencies to agencies throughout the country to avoid interference. The FCC
accomplishes this in general by limiting radio transmission power and separating frequency users
by distance and natural topographic barriers. In this case, the 1,500-foot Cuesta Ridge in the Los
Padres National Forest prevents use of current radio frequencies between San Luis Obispo and
Atascadero/Paso Robles. Alternative solutions identified include:
1. Radio repeater transmitter on Cuesta Ridge
➢ FCC license required, if available
➢ New repeater infrastructure required, with related initial and recurring costs
2. New radio frequency(s) licensed for the broader proposed operational area
➢ FCC license required
➢ Frequency availability a potential issue
➢ Radio repeater transmitter on Cuesta Ridge still required
3. Alternative connectivity of existing radio frequencies
➢ Use of existing Atascadero and Paso Robles radio frequencies connected to
San Luis Obispo Communications Center by one of the following:
o Microwave relay
o Fiber-optic cable
• Capacity available in existing Nacimiento Pipeline Project;
cable managed by San Luis Obispo County Public Works
(San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles are current project
partners)
• AT&T commercial fiber-optic cable
• Redundant cable connectivity available
• Connectivity solution from communications centers to
existing cable locations required
• Cost not evaluated at this phase
Item 12
Packet Page 221
Executive Summary Report Page 7
Given the alternatives identified, Citygate concludes that multiple solutions are available to
provide reliable radio communications between the proposed merged dispatch center in San Luis
Obispo and Atascadero and Paso Robles.
Finding #2: Multiple solutions are available to provide reliable radio
communications between Atascadero and Paso Robles and the
proposed merged dispatch center in San Luis Obispo.
6. FIRE AGENCY ISSUES
Citygate’s interviews of the three partner agencies’ Fire Chiefs yielded the following comments
and concerns relative to a single merged fire/police dispatch center in San Luis Obispo:
◆ 9-1-1 call processing/dispatch performance that meets National Fire Pro tection
Association best-practice guidelines
➢ 1:30 minutes or less at 90 percent or better reliability
◆ Dispatch of closest available resource regardless of jurisdiction utilizing automatic
vehicle location technology
◆ CAD-to-CAD interface with CAL FIRE San Luis Obispo Unit Emergency
Command Center
◆ Integration of Emergency Medical Dispatching into the merged dispatch center
◆ Surge capacity to support major/extended emergency incidents
◆ Unanswered radio communications
◆ Accuracy of CAD time stamps for performance monitoring
◆ Having a voice in Dispatcher training and dispatch center operational issues
Finding #3: The partner agencies’ Fire Chiefs have concerns regarding
coordination of multiple fire agency dispatching to be considered in
any proposed consolidation model.
7. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO CAL POLY
As a unique university campus jurisdiction, Cal Poly provides the following services that it desires
to maintain in the proposed merged dispatch center model:
◆ Campus-wide, blue-light emergency telephone answering
Item 12
Packet Page 222
Executive Summary Report Page 8
◆ Lockouts
◆ Staff/student escort service
◆ Campus alarm system monitoring
◆ Live Scan fingerprinting
Finding #4: Cal Poly provides unique, non-dispatch-related services to the
campus to be considered in any proposed consolidation model.
8. WORKLOAD ANALYSIS
8.1 Current Workload
Citygate utilized the following available metrics to evaluate current communications center
workload:
◆ 9-1-1 call volume as reported by the State of California Emergency Call Tracking
System (ECaTS)
◆ Administrative/other telephone call volume as reported by each agency
◆ Fire and police emergency incident volume as reported by each agency
Using this criteria, Table 2 summarizes 2019 workload in each of the four existing communications
centers.
Table 2—2019 Workload Summary
Agency
2019
Total
Workload
Percentage
of Total Population
Telephone Calls Incidents
9-1-1 Other Total Police1 Fire Total
Atascadero 30,330 8,925 49,095 58,020 25,454 3,323 28,777 86,797 20.38%
Cal Poly 24,955 2,345 24,738 27,083 19,779 n/a2 19,779 46,862 11.00%
Paso Robles 32,212 14,669 80,398 95,067 43,279 4,051 47,330 142,397 33.43%
San Luis Obispo 47,446 24,410 87,323 111,733 31,411 6,722 38,133 149,866 35.19%
Total 134,943 50,349 241,554 291,903 119,923 14,096 134,019 425,922 100.00%
1 Includes officer-initiated activity
2 Included in Police incident total
Item 12
Packet Page 223
Executive Summary Report Page 9
8.2 Projected Near-Term Future Workload
Citygate utilized projected population / service area growth data as available from each study
partner jurisdiction to estimate near-term future service demand and related communications
center workload, as summarized in Table 3.2
Table 3—Projected Near-Term Future Workload Summary
Agency Population
Telephone Calls Incidents Total
Workload
Projected
Percentage
Growth 9-1-1 Other Total Police Fire Total
Atascadero 31,000 11,000 53,000 64,000 27,500 3,500 31,000 95,000 9.45%
Cal Poly 26,000 3,500 27,000 30,500 21,000 n/a1 21,000 51,500 9.90%
Paso Robles 32,500 17,000 83,000 100,000 45,000 4,200 49,200 149,200 4.78%
San Luis Obispo 47,500 27,000 90,000 117,000 35,000 6,900 41,900 158,900 6.03%
Total 137,000 58,500 253,000 311,500 128,500 14,600 143,100 454,600 5.26%
1 Included in Police incident total
9. MERGED DISPATCH CENTER STAFFING NEEDS ANALYSIS
9.1 Telephone Call Workload by Hour of Day
Citygate utilized 2019 ECaTS data through September 30 to analyze telephone call workload by
hour of day as shown in Figure 1 through Figure 4. Telephone workload includes incoming 9-1-1
calls as well as incoming and outgoing non-9-1-1 telephone calls.
2 Through December 2022
Item 12
Packet Page 224
Executive Summary Report Page 10
Figure 1—Telephone Workload by Hour of Day – Atascadero
Figure 2—Telephone Workload by Hour of Day – Cal Poly
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Calls per Hour
PSAP Average
Item 12
Packet Page 225
Executive Summary Report Page 11
Figure 3—Telephone Workload by Hour of Day – Paso Robles
Item 12
Packet Page 226
Executive Summary Report Page 12
Figure 4—Telephone Workload by Hour of Day – San Luis Obispo
Finding #5: By hour of day, telephone call workload is consistent across the four
study partner agencies.
9.2 Staffing Needs Analysis
Citygate utilized the projected workload data from Table 3 and telephone workload data from
Figure 1 through Figure 4 to project merged dispatch center staffing needed as compared to current
aggregate study partner communications centers staffing, as shown in Table 4.3
3 Assumes 12-hour staggered work shifts
Item 12
Packet Page 227
Executive Summary Report Page 13
Table 4—Projected Staffing Needs Comparison Summary
Communications Center Manager Supervisor Dispatcher Total
Minimum
Shift
Staffing
Merged Dispatch Center 1 5 21 27 5
Current Aggregate 1 4 321 37 5
Merged Dispatch Center
Difference 0 +1 -11 -10 0
1 Includes two part-time/on-call Dispatchers at Cal Poly
This analysis also identified non-dispatch-related duties that would need to be reallocated to other
personnel in Atascadero, Cal Poly, and Paso Robles.
Finding #6: Staffing needed for a merged dispatch center is 10 fewer personnel
than currently utilized in the four study partners’ communications
centers.
Finding #7: Leave-behind, non-dispatch-related duties would require an
estimated additional 1.0 to 2.0 full-time equivalent personnel each
for Atascadero, Cal Poly, and Paso Robles, effectively using many
of the saved positions and reducing merger cost savings.
10. MERGED DISPATCH CENTER SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS
Based on the merged dispatch center staffing identified in Table 4, Citygate evaluated the space
and layout of the San Luis Obispo Police Department Communications Center for its ability to
adequately accommodate the space and utilization needs of the proposed merged dispatch center
staff. This evaluation concluded that the San Luis Obispo Communications Center could
adequately accommodate the proposed additional staffing, with modification to provide an
additional Supervisors office space, a gender-neutral restroom, and additional staff locker space,
as summarized in Table 5.
Item 12
Packet Page 228
Executive Summary Report Page 14
Table 5—Merged Dispatch Center Space Needs Assessment
Functional Need Number
Needed
Current
Number or
Available
Space
Dispatch Console 6 6
Manager Office 1 1
Supervisor Office 3 2
Restroom – Male 1 1
Restroom – Female 1 1
Restroom – Gender Neutral 1 0
Employee Breakroom 1 1
Employee Locker Space 27 15
Mail / File / Storage 1 1
IT Equipment Room 1 1
Finding #8: The San Luis Obispo Police Department Communications Center
would adequately accommodate the additional staffing needed for a
merged dispatch center, with some modest interior remodeling to
meet additional space utilization needs for all the needed
support/supervision spaces.
11. COMPARATIVE COMPENSATION ANALYSIS
Table 6, also included in Appendix A in a larger size, summarizes total compensation by agency
and position, including the percentage difference from current San Luis Obispo total
compensation.
Item 12
Packet Page 229
Executive Summary Report Page 15
Table 6—Total Compensation Analysis Summary
Finding #9: Total current average communications center compensation in
Atascadero, Cal Poly, and Paso Robles ranges from 16 percent to 32
percent less than current average San Luis Obispo compensation by
comparable position.
12. MERGED DISPATCH CENTER COST ANALYSIS
Table 7 summarizes projected merged dispatch center personnel costs based on San Luis Obispo
total compensation by position from Table 6 and merged dispatch center staffing needs from Table
4.
Table 7—Projected Merged Dispatch Center Personnel Costs
Position Classification Total Annual
Compensation
Number
Needed
Total Annual
Cost
Communications Center Manager1 $187,741 1 $187,741
Communications Supervisor2 $141,470 5 $707,350
Communications Technician2 $118,761 21 $2,493,981
Total 27 $3,389,072
1 Assumes top-step San Luis Obispo total compensation without Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL)
2 Assumes average San Luis Obispo total compensation without UAL
Item 12
Packet Page 230
Executive Summary Report Page 16
Table 8 summarizes current communications center personnel costs by agency.
Table 8—Current Personnel Costs by Agency
Agency / Position Total Annual
Compensation
Number of
Personnel
Total Annual
Cost
San Luis Obispo $1,751,222
Communications Center Manager $161,911 1 $161,911
Communications Supervisor1 $141,470 2 $282,940
Communications Technician1 $118,761 11 $1,306,371
Atascadero2 $643,852
Support Services Lead Technician $96,694 1 $96,694
Support Services Technician $91,193 6 $547,158
Cal Poly2 $648,120
Communications and Records
Coordinator $129,124 1 $129,124
Dispatcher II $111,647 2 $223,294
Dispatcher I $98,567 2 $197,134
Dispatcher I (part-time)3 $49,284 2 $98,568
Paso Robles2 $859,420
Dispatch Supervisor $118,564 1 $118,564
Dispatcher $92,607 8 $740,856
Aggregate Total Cost $3,902,614
1 Average of actual cost for position classification
2 Assumes average total annual compensation
3 Assumes 0.5 FTE
Item 12
Packet Page 231
Executive Summary Report Page 17
Table 9 summarizes current versus projected merged dispatch center personnel costs by agency.
Table 9—Current Versus Merged Dispatch Center Personnel Costs by Agency
Agency
Current
Personnel
Costs
Cost Share
Percentage1
Projected
Merged Dispatch
Center
Personnel Costs
Difference
San Luis Obispo $1,751,222 35.19% $1,192,614 ($558,608)
Atascadero $643,852 20.38% $690,693 $46,841
Cal Poly $648,120 11.00% $372,798 ($275,322)
Paso Robles $859,420 33.43% $1,132,967 $273,547
Total $3,902,614 100.00% $3,389,072 ($513,542)
1 Based on 2019 total workload percentage
Finding #10: Projected merged dispatch center personnel costs compared to
current personnel costs by agency range from $558,000 less for San
Luis Obispo to $273,000 more for Paso Robles.
Table 10 summarizes total estimated merged dispatch center costs by agency based on total 2019
workload percentage.
Table 10—Estimated Total Merged Dispatch Center Costs by Agency
Agency
2019
Total
Workload
Percentage
of Total
Prorated Merged Dispatch Center
Costs1 Current
Personnel
Costs
Estimated
Change
from
Current
Costs
Percentage
Change
from
Current
Cost Personnel O & M2 Total
San Luis
Obispo 149,866 35.19% $1,192,614 $62,500 $1,255,114 $1,751,222 ($496,108) -28.33%
Atascadero 86,797 20.38% $690,693 $62,500 $753,193 $643,852 $109,341 16.98%
Cal Poly 46,862 11.00% $372,798 $62,500 $435,298 $648,120 ($212,822) -32.84%
Paso Robles 142,397 33.43% $1,132,967 $62,500 $1,195,467 $859,420 $336,047 39.10%
Total 425,922 100.00% $3,389,072 $250,000 $3,639,072 $3,902,614 ($263,542) -6.75%
1 Based on 2019 workload percentage
2 Estimated
As Table 10 shows, total merged dispatch center costs over current personnel costs by agency
range from $496,000 less for San Luis Obispo to $336,000 more for Paso Robles, with a net
aggregate savings over current personnel costs of $263,500.
Item 12
Packet Page 232
Executive Summary Report Page 18
Finding #11: Total merged dispatch center costs range from $496,000 less than
current personnel costs for San Luis Obispo to $336,000 more than
current personnel costs for Paso Robles, with a net aggregate
savings over current personnel costs of $263,500.
Item 12
Packet Page 233
Appendix A Page 19
APPENDIX A
Table 6—Total Compensation Analysis Summary
Agency / Position
Annual Salary Annual Benefits
(Without UAL)
Total Annual Compensation
(Without UAL)
Percent Difference from SLO
(Without UAL)
Low High Average Low High Average Low High Average Low High Average
San Luis Obispo
Dispatcher $64,104 $97,988 $81,046 $14,207 $28,109 $21,158 $94,868 $142,653 $118,761 n/a n/a n/a
Supervisor $79,924 $112,093 $96,009 $18,255 $33,222 $25,738 $117,902 $165,038 $141,470 n/a n/a n/a
Manager $92,591 $128,500 $110,546 $20,916 $36,668 $28,792 $136,081 $187,741 $161,911 n/a n/a n/a
Atascadero
Support Services Technician $53,925 $78,546 $66,236 $15,299 $34,616 $24,957 $69,225 $113,161 $91,193 -27.03% -20.67% -23.21%
Support Services Lead Technician $57,855 $84,168 $71,011 $15,824 $35,540 $25,682 $73,679 $119,708 $96,694 -37.51% -27.47% -31.65%
Cal Poly
Dispatcher I $54,410 $61,574 $57,992 $35,693 $45,457 $40,575 $90,103 $107,031 $98,567 -5.02% -24.97% -17.00%
Dispatcher II $66,096 $69,701 $67,898 $39,437 $48,059 $43,748 $105,533 $117,760 $111,647 -10.49% -28.65% -21.08%
Communications/Records
Coordinator $80,114 $82,157 $81,136 $43,929 $52,048 $47,988 $124,043 $134,205 $129,124 -8.85% -28.52% -20.25%
Paso Robles
Dispatcher $57,040 $76,662 $66,851 $17,338 $34,174 $25,756 $74,378 $110,835 $92,607 -21.60% -22.30% -22.02%
Dispatch Supervisor $74,364 $99,295 $86,830 $21,964 $41,504 $31,734 $96,328 $140,799 $118,564 -18.30% -14.69% -16.19%
Item 12
Packet Page 234
City of San Luis Obispo, Police Department, 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-2729, 805.781.7317, slocity.org
November 16, 2020
Presiding Judge Jacquelyn H. Duffy
Superior Court of California
1035 Palm Street. Room 355
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408-1000
RE: 2020 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Reports
Dear Judge Duffy,
We are in receipt of the 2020 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury reported titled “Joint Agency
Dispatch – Better Together?”” and have prepared the following response to the
recommendation.
Response to Recommendation R1: The Cities of Atascadero, Grover Beach, Paso Robles, Pismo
Beach and San Luis Obispo, should each request a proposal from the San Luis Obispo County
Sheriff and Cal Fire to provide contract dispatch services and present it as an option in future
budgets.
Opposition to Recommendation R1: The City of San Luis Obispo recently conducted an extensive
analysis of our Communications operations, and the cost/benefit of a regionalized approach.
Citygate Associates was selected to conduct the study between the cities of San Luis Obispo,
Paso Robles, Atascadero and Cal Poly University, and the study was completed in May 2020. As
noted in the Grand Jury Report, a consolidated dispatch center was not fiscally advantageous to
other cities in the study. As part of that project, City staff also approached the San Luis Obispo
County Sheriff and Cal Fire to discuss contracting for Police and Fire dispatching services.
The City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) received a cost estimate from CAL FIRE
SLU/SLO County Fire Department in 2018 to provide Fire dispatching services. SLOFD learned at
that meeting all of the “mobile data equipment” and supporting hardware would need to be
replaced and required to move to the State platform at an unspecified cost and a lack of control
by connecting to a Statewide system. Future increases in costs associated with hardware and
dispatch services would be at the discretion of the SLU Fire Chief with no board oversight or
option for specific services such as quickest route or pulse point. After reviewing the costs cited
in the Grand Jury report, several local fire Chiefs under contract with CAL FIRE SLU Emergency
Command Center reported that their costs exceeded the reported figures in the Grand Jury
report, as other associated costs such as required computer hardware and software upgrades
were not included. Five Cities Fire Authority stated their most recent invoice was in excess of
$155k.
Item 12
Packet Page 235
In discussions with the Sheriff’s Office, there were two major considerations that presented
challenges in a consolidated approach. The first was the high volume of calls that are generated
in the City of San Luis Obispo. The monetary savings that are achieved by some of the smaller
dispatch centers in the County would not scale the same way when applied to the San Luis
Obispo call volume and the personnel that the Sheriff would need to hire in order to absorb the
call load. In addition, the San Luis Obispo City Emergency Communications Center (ECC)
currently has 3-4 personnel on-duty during peak times. This is far in excess to the small centers
and is not subject to the same risk of a large event overwhelming the entire communications
center.
Another major consideration identified was the ongoing costs to support an independent
functioning dispatch centers in the County to act as a backup in the case of a catastrophe.
Currently the City of San Luis Obispo ECC is the backup for the Sheriff’s Communications Center
and MEDCOM, and vice versa. The ECC is also the back-up for CAL FIRE SLU and vice versa
fire/rescue emergencies. Should the City of San Luis Obispo want to contract Police and Fire
dispatch services to other agencies, the cost of maintaining the current communications center
in a state of readiness for the County would need to be funded. Any potential cost savings that
could be gained by regionalizing would be offset by the ongoing IT and readiness costs of the
ECC.
Finally, there are outstanding questions and details about operational decisions when
contracting out services. The City of San Luis Obispo provides a very high level of service to the
community in Police and Fire dispatching services. There are many non-monetary factors that
need to be considered when making decisions that could affect the handling of both emergency
and non-emergency calls. For the reasons detailed above, the City of San Luis Obispo will
maintain the existing ECC and staffing in order to continue to provide superior Police and Fire
dispatching services to our City, and to provide a robust backup Communications Center for the
County.
Sincerely,
Jeff Smith
Chief of Police
Item 12
Packet Page 236
1
California Penal Code Sections 933 through 933.05
Section 933 – Final Reports
(a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its
findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or
calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury. A final
report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments,
including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding
judge that the report is incompliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term, the
foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the
recommendations of the report.
(b) One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance
with this title shall be placed on file with the clerk of the court and remain on file in the
office of the clerk. The clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the
responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any
public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency
shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every
elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with
an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency
or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county,
the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who
impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file
with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with
the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand
jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.
(d) As used in this section "agency" includes a department.
933.05. Findings and Recommendations
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding
person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response
shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of
the reasons therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the
responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented
action.
Item 12
Packet Page 237
2
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury
report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel
matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or
department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury,
but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel
matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected
agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations
affecting his or her agency or department.
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the
purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that
person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation
regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request
of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report
relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the
approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a
public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final
report.
Item 12
Packet Page 238