HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/1998, 5B - REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS CounaL Feb. 17, 1998
j agenda nEpout �
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: James M.Gardiner,Chief of Police
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
CAO RECONEMMNDATION
1. Adopt a resolution approving an expenditure of $63,612 of the federal 1997 Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant funds for purchase of equipment as recommended by the Chief of Police
and approving the required 1/9's City matching funds of$7,068 from the General fund.
2. Adopt a resolution approving an expenditure of$96,715 from the 1997 State budget grant for the
purchase of equipment as recommended by the Chief ofPolice.
3. Approve in concept the tentative spending plan for addition of a Field Services Technician and the
purchase of equipment in the 1998-99 budget year as funds become available from the proposed
1998-99 State budget.
DISCUSSION
On November 11, 1996, the Council appointed the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Advisory
Board in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Omnibus Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations
Act (Public Act 104-34). The task of this five member group was to provide an advisory
recommendation to the City on the proposed spending of Block Grant money under the law. This
recommendation was to be based on expenditures as proposed by the Chief of Police, again in
accordance with the provisions of the law. The law also requires a public hearing before the funds may
be spent.
In early 1997 the Advisory Board and public hearing process approved the spending of these funds for
equipment. Since these were one-time funds, it was felt that they should be applied to critical
equipment needs rather than fund on-going programs. Additionally, the Council appropriated
matching funds as required by the grant. The"no supplantation"language of the law precluded the use
of money from the existing police budget.
Late last year we were notified that the Federal Budget for 1997 included another block grant for the
same purposes and with the same restrictions. Also, as was the case last year,we learned that the State
was providing grant funds under the provisions of a three year bill - AB 1584 (details will be covered
later in this report). Based on these two funding sources, the Police Department staff reviewed the
current and projected needs of the organization. A plan was developed which included a blending of
both the Federal and State funds. This plan was reviewed and given tentative approval by the City
Adminishative Officer.
Council Agenda Report-Review of Law Enforcement Grants
Page 2
Following the guidelines and consistent with last year's process, the plan was sent to the five members
of the Advisory Board(Attachment 4). They were asked to provide input for the Federal funds for this
fiscal year as well as the proposed use of the three year State funding. The Board reviewed the
recommendations and concurred with the recommended spending for the 1997-98 fiscal year and the
proposed plan for the expenditures in the two subsequent years of State funding.
FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 EXPENDITURES
The Federal funds for the 1997-98 year are$63,612 with a City match of$7,068 for a total of$70,680.
The State funds are allocated with the same formula established in the previous year and total$96,715.
As was mentioned previously, in response to concerns raised by law enforcement last year, the State
allocation was made as part of a three year bill with specific language that establishes the intent of the
legislature to fund each of the three years. This means that the City can expect at least the same
amount of funding for the next two fiscal years. Currently, the Governor's proposed budget includes
this finding for the 1998-99 fiscal year. Additionally, we contacted State Senator Jack O'Connel who
stated that it is the intention of all parties in the legislature that the commitments in the bill will be
filled.
Since the Federal money is for this year only, we are again recommending that the finds be spent on
improving technology. The first expenditure is for in-car video systems for our patrol vehicles. Suffice
it to say, we anticipate enormous evidential value for criminal prosecutions and as protection in civil
liability cases. The cost of this system with supplies and storage capabilities will be approximately
$89,000. The second expenditure is for a"live scan' electronic fingerprint system. Currently used by
the Sheriffs Department at the jail, this is the state of the art in criminal identification and is becoming
the state-wide standard. The cost of this system with appropriate modifications to our facility is
approximately$78,000. These items are discussed more fully in Attachment 4.
Total Expenditures 1997-98: $167,000
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 EXPENDITURES
With the commitment to at least two-years of additional State funding, this year's recommendations
include the addition of an additional Field Services Technician (FST), necessary equipment for the
position, and other technological acquisitions.
Field Services Technician
As far back as the POST audit report of 1995, a significant area of operational deficiency has been
those property, evidence, and field support services provided by our non-sworn personnel. These
pressures have been generated by the significant increases in calls for service with a minimal increase in
personnel resources. In 1987 the Department had 80 authorized personnel and handled 24,341 calls
for service. In 1997 the Department has 81 authorized personnel and handled 30,747 calls for service.
This means that the Department has seen a 26% increase in workload with a less than 2% increase in
personnel resources. While we have been successful in the use of volunteers, improvements in
procedures, and new technology, the fact remains that important aspects of the Department's
responsibilities and tasks have reached a critical level.
Council Agenda Report - Review of Law Enforcement Grants
Page 3
The addition of one FST, as recommended by the POST audit, would not only handle the areas of
deficiency but would also free up time of the two existing FST's to handle more field and support
functions. A more detailed description of the position can be found in Attachment 4. This "domino"
effect would increase the availability of sworn officer time and increase overall police resources to deal
with conununity problems and issues. Costs associated with the position are: Salary & benefits -
$51,681; vehicle and equipment - $28,000; personal radio and other equipment - $1,600; Total -
$81,281.
Ni9k vision Device
There are many law enforcement situations in which the ability to "see in the dark" give a substantial
advantage both tactically and for officer safety. With technological advances, hand held systems are
now available which provide great flexibility in both use and application. There are a number of current
systems now on the market. It is anticipated that the cost will be approximately $13,000 but may be
lower in a competitive bidding process.
Evidence Equipment
Collection and processing of crime scene evidence is a primary responsibility of the Department. With
past fiscal restraints, our ability to purchase equipment to enhance our capabilities in these areas has
been limited. We are recommending the purchase of items for evidence collection as well as safety
equipment for the collection process. The specific items are itemized in Attachment 4. The total
expenditure in this area is approximately$2,200.
Total Expenditures 1998-99: $96,501
FISCAL YEAR 1990-00 EXPENDITURES
This would be the third year of the State grant funding. It is recommended that the funding for the
FST position be included and that the balance remain unidentified until we evaluate the needs of the
Department. This would also be factored in with the budget process for the new two-year financial
plan. Total costs for the FST would be approximately $53,000 leaving a balance of approximately
$43,000 to be allocated.
Total Expenditures 1999-00: approximately$96,000
CONCLUSION
These grant sources have allowed the City to acquire critical public safety equipment and technology
which have been unavailable due to recent fiscal constraints. With the work of many in the law
enforcement community, the three-year bill for grant funding has addressed the concerns about the
inability to plan or support personnel resources due to a series of"one-time"grants. Indeed, there was
some discussion about discontinuing this resource because there was concern that the funding was not
being used for direct services to `front line" law enforcement and community service. While the City
has been appropriately cautious of incurring on-going costs due to grant commitments, we have also
taken advantage of these opportunities to fund essential personnel resources without incurring
immediate General fiord expenditures.
Council Agenda Report- Review of Law Enforcement Grants
Page 4
With the recommended action, the City will gain valuable public safety resources and will also
demonstrate our commitment to the intent of the grant legislation for providing personnel to improve
direct support to law enforcement services in the community.
CONCURRENCES
The Directors of Personnel and Finance have reviewed the recommendations and concur with the CAO
recommendations.
FISCAL EWPACT
The approval of the Federal grant funds will require a 1/9's match from the City. As this money cannot
be taken from existing budgets,this will require the expenditure of$7,068 from the General Fund.
Attachments
1. Draft resolution allocating Local Law Enforcement Grant funds
2. Draft resolution allocating expenditure of funds from the 1997 State budget
3. Resolution No. 8604 appointing Local Law Enforcement Block Grant committee members
4. Memo from the Chief of Police to the City Administrative Officer w/cover letter
5. Responses from Local Law Enforcement Block grant committee
i
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN EXPEDITURE OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT FUNDS
AND APPROVING A 1/9`h MATCH FROM THE GENERAL FUND
WHEREAS, the Omnibus Fiscal Year 1997 Appropriations Act, Public Law 104208,
provides fiords for implementation of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program to be
administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance(BJA),U.S.Department of Justice,and
WHEREAS, based on population, the City of San Luis Obispo is eligible to apply for the
amount of $63,612 from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program;and
WHEREAS, as part of the application process, an advisory board was established to review
the application for finding, and has made nonbinding recommendations for the use of funds by the City
of San Luis Obispo;and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 17, 1998, to receive public input on the
recommendations of the advisory board;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approves the
expenditure of$63,612 of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant fiends for the purchase of equipment,
approves the appropriation of 1/9'h matching funds($7,068)from the General Fund, and authorize the
City Administrative Officer to make all grant applications and execute all grant related documents.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 1998.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf Mayor Allen K Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
rtY om y Je rg n
,8's'
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TBE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN EXPEDITURE OF$96,715 FROM TBE 1997-98 STATE BUDGET TO
ASSIST IN FUNDING PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, the adoption of the 1997-98 State budget, the legislature passed AB 1584 which
established the Supplemental Local Law Enforcement Fund;and
WHEREAS, AB1584 appropriated $100 million to supplement local law enforcement
budgets;and
WFEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has received $96,715 from the 1997-98 California
State budget as granted under AB 1584;and
WBEREAS, the funds may be applied to programs or projects which are in existing budgets
but are under-funded;and
WIEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 17, 1998, to receive public input on the
recommendations for the use of these funds;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approves the
expenditure of$96,715 as received from the 1997-98 California State budget to assist in funding Public
Safety equipment, and authorizes the City Administrative Officer to execute any grant related
documents.
Upon.motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ' 1998.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf Mayor Allen K. Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
om 1 or en
RESOLUTION N0. 8604 (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPOINTING MEMBERS TO LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD
WHEREAS, the Omnibus Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-134,
provides funds for the implementation of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program to
be administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice; and
WHEREAS, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program is to provide units of
local government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety;
and
WHEREAS, based on population, the City of San Luis Obispo is eligible to apply for the
.amount of$47,900.00 from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program; and
WHEREAS, as part of the application process, an advisory board must be established or
designated to review the application for funding, and make nonbinding recommendations for the
use of funds by the City of San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, the advisory board shall include representatives of groups with a recognized
interest in criminal justice, and crime or substance abuse prevention and treatment; and
WHEREAS, the advisory board must include representatives from at least: the local law
enforcement agency, the local prosecutor's office, the local court system, the local public school
system, and a local nonprofit group active in crime prevention or drug use prevention or.
treatment;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby appoints
the following representatives to the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program Advisory
Board for the City of San Luis Obispo:
Local Law Enforcement Agency - Captain Cliff Chelquist
Local Prosecutor's Office - Chief Deputy District Attorney Gerald Shea
Local Court System - Juvenile Justice Commissioner Jim Brabeck
Local School System - Asst. Superintendent Rory Livingston
Local Nonprofit Group - Frank Warren, Friday Night Live
Uponmotionof Council Member Romero ,secondedby r:n„nr;l Momhor Rnalman ,
and on the following roll call vote:
Attachment 33
CYS
R8604
Resolution No. 8604 (1996 Series)
Page 2
AYES: Council Members Roalman, Romero, Smith, Williams, Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 19 • -day of November , 1996.
ATTEST:
Ci Clerk Bonnige0a Mayor Allen K. Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ornJeffpePW
en
JB`�
��II���1�11�1118���I��1 �1111111111111� .
C4 Of SM WIS OBIW .
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Post Office Box 1328 • San Luis Obispo, CA 934061328 •(805)781.7317
January 16, 1998
Gerald Shea, Chief Deputy District Attorney
San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's Office
County Government Center, Room 450
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Dear Mr. Shea,
Thank you for agreeing to participate as a member of the City's Law Enforcement Block
Grant Advisory Committee. As the attached report explains, we are asking you to review and
provide me with input into my recommendations for use of our grant funds. After your
recommendations,these expenditures will be set for a public hearing.
As you will note, this year we have two funding sources. Although the Federal grant is "one-
time" money, the state funds are part of a three year bill. The state bill has funded the 1997
money and the funds are included in the Governor's budget for 1998. Therefore, we are
asking for your recommendations for not only this fiscal year, but also the intended funding
for the next two years as well.
Please review these recommendations from your perspective. If there are other areas or ideas
which you believe we should evaluate, please do not hesitate to give me.that information. If I
receive other ideas or options, I will convene a meeting of the entire group to discuss the
information. If you are comfortable with these recommendations, please let me know as soon
as possible so we may move on to the public hearing.
Again, thank you for your willingness to participate. If you have any questions, please feel
free to contact me at 781-7337.
Sincerely,
/ JAMES M. GARDINER
CHIEF OF POLICE
JMG:kk
Enclos=
"Service, Pride, Integrity" Attachment 4
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781.7410 J23 �9?
AffMORANDUM
TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: James M. Gardiner, Chief of Police-l�`�'
DATE: January 14, 1998
SUBJECT: Public Safety Grant Funding Recommendations
Both the state and federal governments have provided grant funds for law enforcement for
fiscal year 1997-98. The state funding is $96,715 and has no matching requirement. The
federal funding is $63,612 with a required local INN city match of $7,068 for a total of
$70,680. Therefore, the total for both grants is $167,395. Both of these grants have "no
supplantation' language and must be used for front line police services. Each of the grants
also calls for a public hearing based upon recommendations for expenditures from the Chief
of the law enforcement agency.
An important new component to the state funding is that it came in the form of a three year
bill with specific language stating the legislatures full intent to fund the grant for the 1998-99
and 1999-00 fiscal years as well. This language was included to allow communities to plan
for this money so that funding could be used for planning and with a specific emphasis on
hiring personnel. The funding and formula for distribution would remain the same.
Therefore, we should plan for approximately the same level of funding for each of the
remaining two years of the bill. As yet we have no information or commitment from the
federal government for additional funding.
Based on the funding available this year and the proposed funding for the additional two
years, I am will be requesting approval of the expenditures for this fiscal year and conceptual
approval for a spending plan based on the expected funding for the second and third year of
the state money. Naturally, if it appears that the funding changes for these years, either up or
down, or if we receive funding from the federal government, I will modify the plan prior to
the pubic hearing for the respective fiscal year.
FISCAL YEAR 1997-98
For this year the Department will again focus on improving technology. My
recommendations are as follows:
1. In-car Video System
As has been widely seen on television and in the courtroom, in car video systems for
police vehicles have enormous evidential value for criminal prosecutions and as protection
in civil liability cases. After a number of years of development, systems have been refined
and modified to handle the tough use they receive in the police field environment.
My recommendation will be to install cameras in all eleven patrol vehicles, including the
supervisors car. With supplies and storage capabilities, the cost of the system will be
approximately $89,000. This may be lower after a competitive bidding process. While
this may sound expensive, I would point out that it is only a small portion of the potential
legal fees on one civil liability case.
2. Live Scan Fingerprint System
State of the art electronic fingerprinting is now a reality. The"live scan" systems of today
allow ease of fingerprinting both suspects and others who need security clearances. The
quality of the print is many times better than those done by traditional methods.
Additionally, in the electronic format, prints can be transmitted immediately to
Sacramento for computer analysis and identification. This is a major advantage when law
enforcement suspects that a subject is giving false identification.
We are proposing to link our system with the current "live scan" system at the Sheriff's
jail. In this manner,we can expedite the booking of prisoners as well as share information
with a net-worked digital imaging system which is in our CAD upgrade which is currently
underway. The cost for this system, with modifications to our booking area, will be
approximately$78,000. There are currently two systems which have been certified for use
in the state. We do not believe that they will be significantly different in cost and we
would lean heavily towards a system which is similar to that already in place at the
Sheriff's facility.
Proposed 1997-98 Expenditures Total - $167,000
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
Based on demonstrated service needs, this year's recommendation includes the addition of a
Field Services Technician, necessary equipment for the additional position, and other
technology acquisitions:
2
1. Field Services Technician
As far back as the POST audit report of 1995, a significant area of operational deficiency
has been those property, evidence, and support services provided by our non-sworn
personnel. The POST audit recommended that a person be assigned to a full-time
property/evidence position. The Department had drafted and was prepared to submit a
request for this position as part of the 1997-98 budget. However, parameters for the
budget would have required no net increase in personnel and we could not sustain a loss
in any other area of the Department.
The addition of position would not only handle a critical need but would also free up time
of existing Field Services Technicians to handle more field and support functions. This
"domino" effect would free up sworn officer time to respond to calls more expeditiously
and to increase overall police resources to deal with community problems and issues. A
fuller discussion of the position and duties is attached for review.
Costs associated with addition of the position are: salary and benefits - $51,681; vehicle
and equipment- $28,000; personal radio and other equipment- $1,600; Total - $81,281.
2. Thermal Imaging Night Vision Device
There are many law enforcement situations in which the ability to "see in the dark" gives
us a substantial advantage both tactically and for officer safety. Whether it is a
surveillance, a SWAT situation, or looking for a fleeing suspect or lost child, the ability to
use a heat sensing night vision device would be a great benefit. With technological
advances, hand held systems are now available which provide great flexibility in both use
and application. Current systems are on the market and are available in the range of
approximately $13,000. Again, bidding may bring this price down somewhat.
3. Evidence Equipment
Collection and processing of crime scene evidence is a primary responsibility of the
Department. A review of our existing facility and equipment has identified certain
equipment which should be purchased to enhance our ability to collect/process evidence
while ensuring the safety of the employees involved. I am recommending the purchase of
two camera cases - $200, a full face respirator - $240, air filters - $800, a light meter -
$380, and two four-head VCRs- $600. Total for this equipment - $ 2,220.
Proposed 1998-99 Expenditures Total - $96,501
3
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
I am recommending that the expected funding continue the FST position and that the
remainder remain unidentified until we evaluate the needs of the Department at that time.
1. FST position- Salary and Benefits $53,230
2. Balance of expected funding-approximately $43,000
Proposed 1999-00 Expenditures Total - $96,715
Again, with your approval, I will be presenting the first year funding for comment to the
community panel for their review and comment as required by the Federal grant. I will also
be asking for their comments regarding the proposed plans in the second and third year of the
State funding bill. Naturally, should there be additional Federal funding, we would need to
follow the process again for those years.
Once I have received comments for the community panel, I will finalize my recommendations
and forward them to you in the form of an agenda report so that we can comply with the
public hearing provisions for both the Federal and State money. I hope that this can be done
quickly so that we can get on the agenda no later than the first meeting in January.
4 ���3
PROPERTY CLERK
It is proposed that a third Field Service Technician'-position be authorized to handle property.
In the POST publication"Managing Property in Law Enforcement Agencies" it states that the
responsibility for safeguarding and processing property should be assigned to a specific
organizational unit which functions primarily for that purpose. The publication also states that
centralizing the control and storage of property, and staffing the property unit with personnel,
who are not involved in operational tasks, are precautions what will simplify control procedures
and enhance the integrity of a property system. The creation of the new position will also fulfill
this requirement. Additionally, in 1995, the POST report recommended the creation of this
separate position to handle the property.
In 1996 the department received over 4,630 items of property. There were 146 guns, and 430
packages of narcotics booked. And in the same year we only released 1483 items of property.
Evidence in murder cases must kept indefinitely creating storage problems.
This additional position will increase the productivity of both the Evidence Technician and the
Field Service Technicians. The Property Clerk position would allow the Evidence Technician to
process more of the fingerprint cases submitted. Currently, CAL-ID (a computer system used to
search fingerprint data bases) is only used when a specific request is received. All latent prints
found at the scene of a crime should be checked through this system. The department must go to
T' the San Luis Obispo Sheriff crime lab to have the prints checked. With the additional time, the
Evidence Technician can prepare the search and simply use their computer terminal. This, in turn,
will increase the number of suspects identified and prosecuted. Additionally, the Evidence
Technician will be more available to assist patrol and detectives with their investigations.
By relieving the Field Services Technicians of some of the duties they have in the station, more of
their time could be spend in the field. Those station duties include: fingerprinting applicants and
registrants, handling court ordered bookings, and releasing property. The Field Services
Technicians would then be freed up to begin performing some of the duties originally envisioned
when the position was created in 1977. Those duties include handling: "cold" calls, recovering
property, property damage only accidents, crowd control, animal control calls, assisting the
Evidence Technician, giving crime prevention talks, parking enforcement, posting illegal camp
sites, fleet management, etc. As the Field Services Technicians begin handling more patrol related
calls, the patrol officers are freed up to handle the more serious calls and be more proactive in
their police work. The department's overall response time will be reduced and the quality of
service will be enhanced.
The PROPERTY CLERK would be responsible for the following:
I. General Office Duties
A. Biannual Inspection/Audit
B. Maintain/Order/Stock Supplies
C. Release Property
D. Research Case Status for Purging
I
II. Inventory Property
A. Assign Tracking Numbers to All Property
B. Data Entry
C. Evidence
D. Lost and Found
E. Safekeeping
F. Store Property
M. Maintain Property
A. Courtroom Exhibits
B. Examination By Detective, Court, DA, or Defense
C. Narcotics to DOJ Lab
IV. Property Intake
A. Clear Evidence Lockers
1. Maintain and stock the Property Booking Area
V. Purge Property
A. Types of Disposal/Destruction
1. Alcohol
2. Auction
a. Annual Gun Auction
b. Biannual
3. Hazardous Materials
a. Bomb Squad
b. General Hospital
c. Corporation Yard
4. Money
a. City Finance
5. Narcotics
a. Biannual
b. Court Order
VI. Station Duties
A. Court Ordered Booking
B. Dispatch relief
C. Fingerprint Services for Applicants
D. Registrant Processing
The EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN would be responsible for the following:
I. Collection of Evidence
II. Courtroom Testimony
A. Latent Print Comparisons
1. Prepare Court Room Displays
B. Crime Scene Investigation
1. Procedure and Protocol
2. Evidence Identification and Collection
C. Miscellaneous Expert Testimony
1. Civil
2. Criminal
2
III. Field Calls/Warrant Searches
A Documentation
1. Description
2. Detailed Notes
3. Diagram
4. Measurements
5. Placement of Evidence
B. Photography
1. General
2. Specialized
C. Process Evidence at scene
1. Alternate Light Source
2. Chemical
3. Powder
D. Composites
IV. Fingerprints
A. Collect
B. Classify
C. File"Ten Print" Cards
D. Index
V. General Office Duties
A Deliver Evidence for Court, Examination or Inspections
B. Logistical Support for Field Services Technicians
C. Other Duties as assigned.
D. Program Statistics
1. Collect
2. Maintain
E. Provide Assistance to Outside Agencies as Needed
F..Write Reports
VI. Inventory and Purchase
A Photographic Equipment
B. Police Assets
C. Supplies
1. Evidence Collection
2. Finger Print
VII. Laboratory Examinations
A. Process Evidence Using
1. Alternate Light Source
2. Chemical
3. Powder
B. Specialized Photography
1. Evidence Documentation
a. Filtered
b. Macro
c. Time Exposure
3
C. Trace Evidence Examinations
1. Hair/Fiber
2. Miscellaneous Contact
3. Physiological
VIII. Latent Print Comparison
A. CAL-IS and ALPS
1. Coordinate
B. Finger, Palm, Footprint
IX Photographic
A. Develop
B. Print
C. Store
X Training
A. Crime Scene Investigators
B. Field Services Technicians
M. Transportation
A. Laboratory Analysis
XII. Video
A Copy
B. Edit
C. Film at Crime Scenes
The FIELD SERVICES TECHNICIANS would be responsible for the following:
I. Abandoned vehicles
A Abatement
B. Notice
C. Tow
II. Accident Reports
A. Assist
B. Diagrams
C. Statements
D. Traffic control
E. Tows
M. Aid to Sick and Injured
IV. Animal Control
A_ Standby and assist as needed
V. Annoying telephone calls
A. No suspects
VI. Bicycle Safety programs
VII. Burglary Reports
A Assist
B. Collect evidence
VIII. Burning Unlawfully
1X. Calls for Service
A. Respond
B. Writes Reports
4
X Citations
A. Equipment
B. Non-moving
`. C. Parking
XI. City Regulations
A. Ordinance
XII. Court
A Testify
XIII. Crime Prevention and Reduction Program Assistance
XIV. Crime Scene
A. Collect Evidence
B. Statements
XV. Equipment and Supplies
A Issues
B. Maintains
C. Orders
XVI. Files
A. Abandoned Vehicles
B. Follow-up Maintenance
C. Tows
XVII. Health and Safety Hazards
A. Inspections
1. Businesses
2. Public Transportation
3. Residences
XVIII. Hit and Run
A. Non-injury
B. No Suspect
M. Identification Work(when Evidence Technician unavailable)
XX Lost and Found Children
A. Area Search
B. Transportation
XXI. Lost and Found Property
A Report
B. Return
XXII. Mail
A Deliver
B. Pickup
XX)II. Missing Persons
A Report
=V. Photographs
A Accident
B. Crime Scene
5
J1030-
XXV. Police Vehicle
A Inspections
B. Deliver for
1. Repairs
2. Service
C. Return
XXVI. Public Speaking
A Community Relations
B. Crime Prevention
XXVII. Relief
A. Desk
B. .Dispatch
XXVIII. Service to Outside Agencies
A Messages Delivered
B. Subpoenas
XXIX Special Assignments
XXX. Thefts
A. No suspects
XXXI. Traffic Control
A. Accidents
B. Fire
C. Flood
D. House moving
E. Large Gatherings
F. Public Events
XXXQ. Transportation
A. Car Wash
B. Females
C. Males
D. Vehicles for Service
XXXIII. Vandalism
A. No suspect
B. Report
6
®true of the 39totrict Mtomrp l
County of San Luis Obispo
Barry T. LaBarbera
District Attorney
Daniel A. Hilford
Assistant District Attorney
Gerald T. Shea
Chief Deputy District Attorney
January 26, 1998
James M. Gardiner
Chief of Police
City of San Luis Obispo
P. O. Box 1328
San Luis Obispo, CA 193406-1328
Dear Chief Gardiner-
After reviewing the"Public Safety Grant Funding Recommendations
included in your letter of January 16, 1998, I can say that our
office is in full agreement with them and would support their
implementation, not only in this fiscal year but also for the next
two years as well.
Thank you for including us in this worthwhile process .
Very truly yours,
Barry T. LaBarbera
District/ Attorney /
By: :.Gerald T. Shea
Chief Deputy District Attorney
GTS :sld
Attachment 5
Room 450, County Government Center • San Luis Obispo, California 93408 • Telephone (805) 781-58
-W
San Luis Obispo County Farm Supply
-A Farmer Owned Cooperative'
February 4, 1998
Mr. James M. Gardiner, Chief of Police
San Luis Obispo Police Department
P.O. Box 1328
Sar,Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Jim,
The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt and review of your letter to me dated
January 16, 1998, relative to Federal Block Grant Recommendation.
I feel that the recommendations made are very sound and I can think of no better way to
spend the Federal Grant Monies.
Thank you for including me as a member of your Advisory Committee.
RespectfAy yours,
SAN LUIS COUNTY
FARM SUP Y CO
r
James rabeck
General Manager
675 Tank Farm Road 1108 Paso Robles Street 1020 Quintana Road 1220 w.Main street
Post Office Box ill Post Office Box 1288 Morro Bay.CA 93442 Post Office Box 1098
San Luis Obispo.CA 93406 Paso Robles,CA 93446 805 772-5638 Santa Maria,CA 93456
805 543-3751 805 238-1177 805 922-2737`
CAS
San Luis Coastal Unified School Di strict
1499 SAN LUIS DRIVE
SAN LUIS OBISPO • CA • 93401-3099
Telephone: (805)543-2010
January 22, 1998
James M. Gardiner
Chief of Police
City of San Luis Obispo
P. O. Box 1328
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1328
Dear Jim:
I have received your multi-year proposal for use of the grant monies to support the needs of your
department. I concur with your recommendations and support the direction you are heading. If
you need anything further, please call me.
Respectfully,
RO ?L. INGST0N
Assistant Superintendent, Business
RLL:iko
District Superintendent,EDWIN DENTON,Ed-D.
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services.EDWARD T.VALEN ME,Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent of Business Services.RORY LNINGSION
FMDAY (,OI11FraWarren Coordinator
FankkWWarren
MIGNT
1102-B Laurel Lane San Luis Obispo, California 93401 . (805) 781-4289
James Gardiner
Chief of Police
City of San Luis Obispo
Police Department
PO Box 1328
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
January 22, 1998
Dear Chief Gardiner,
Laving reviewed your Public Safety Grant Finding Recommendations, I support your proposal
and appreciate your suggested uses for the funds. I can see each of the budget items as
potentially saving a great deal of time, money, and complications for the department.
At this time,I have no further ideas or suggestions for revision. I am happy to meet with the rest
of the Committee if a need arises. Thank you for the opportumty.to.serve_..
Sincerely,
Frank A. Warren
Coordinator, Friday Night Live
Law Enforcement Block Grant Advisory Committee
PROMOTING A HEALTHY TEEN LIFESTYLE FREE OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND OTHER DRUG.
83
Frid:rr \ighi Liv,- is a nun-prnlir in i1„gtcr;tii,1n tvirh rhe titin Lui. C)hiN;n, (:',unry f)cparnncnt nl Dru;; ,tni! AlrunMI 5crviicN.
January 27, 1998
Chief James M. Gardiner
San Luis Obispo Police Department
1042 Walnut Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
Dear Chief Gardiner
I have reviewed the proposed grant funded projects and find that they are consistent with the
position that I have taken in the past. It is my recommendation that we proceed with the programs
as currently defined..
Cliff Chelquist, Captain
San Luis Obispo Police Department.
�B-�y