HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2007-09-24 #X
e AGENDA REPORT
DATE: September 24, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: David Carmany, City Manager
FROM: Jeff Kirkpatrick, Chief of Police
SUBmCT: Authorization for Chief of Police to sign Protocol
Agreement with the West (Orange) County (Regional)
SWAT Team
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Staff budgeted for the part-time, participation of Seal Beach Police Department officers
on the West (Orange) County (Regional) Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team.
The multi-city regional SWAT team operates under a Protocol agreement signed by each
respective police chief.
e
Staff requests the City Council authorize the Chief of Police to sign the Protocol
agreement and in doing so authorize the Seal Beach Police Department to become the
fifth participating agency on the West (Orange) County (Regional) SWAT team. The
Protocol has been vetted and approved by each of the five City Attorneys.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Seal Beach Police Department has no Special Weapons and Tactics Team
(SWAT) to handle critical, high-risk incidents. The City currently relies upon the Orange
County Sheriff to provide a SWAT Team when the need arises. The Sheriff's assistance
is predicated on the Sheriff's department reserving the right to follow their own rules and
protocols. Such a predicate limits local control over a high-risk incident. The Sheriff is
under no mandate to provide SWAT services to incorporated communities hosting their
own police departments.
e
Operating a 'stand-alone' SWAT team is an expensive proposition demanding more
personnel than the Seal Beach Police Department is able to provide. Few small to
medium sized cities support their own SWAT units. Some larger cities (Anaheim,
Huntington Beach, Long Beach, and Santa Ana) support their own SWAT units but their
team members wear the 'SWAT hat' as a collateral duty in addition to other duties. The
larg!'st cities (Los Angeles, Phoenix, Detroit, and Washington D.C.) actually support
stand-alone SWAT units with no collateral functions - dedicated to immediate high-risk
incident response.
Agenda Item X
e
Most of our neighboring cities suffer restrictions similar to ours and because these issues
are common to many jurisdictions within Orange County, the State of California, and
throughout the nation a trend to regionalize resources has become commonplace.
Regionalization offers many advantages to communities, including but not limited to
consolidation of resources, reduction of shared costs and liabilities, and creative
opportunities for collateral experience, training, and improved professionalism. The
North Orange County cities ofBrea, Buena Park, Fullerton, Placentia, La Habra, and La
Palma consolidated their resources and formed the highly successful North Orange
County Regional SWAT team.
The cities of Cypress, Fountain Valley, Los Alamitos, and Westminster, consolidated
their resources and formed the West (Orange) County Regional SWAT (WC-SWAT)
team in 2004. Their successful experiences over the last three years have invoked
complete, local, control over incidents and the inevitable repercussions resulting from
high-risk, dangerous incidents.
e
WC-SW AT now seeks a fifth agency to join their effort and has invited the City of Seal
Beach and its police department to participate in tactical situations that demand more
resources than one SWAT team can quickly provide. Under the WC-SWAT Protocol,
each of the five cities calls upon and utilizes the resources of the other cities' SWAT
resources to increase public safety and law enforcement effectiveness.
Our threat potential is historically low, but so was that of Columbine, Colorado. Seal
Beach, for a relatively low cost, would receive all the benefits of having a full Special
Weapons and Tactical Team and Crisis Negotiation Team when providing Police
Officers to the WC-SWAT team. A resident, proprietary, rapid action team such as
SWAT is important to the larger picture of maintaining a full service, high state of
readiness. Collaborating with the four other cities to utilize one, mutually common,
SWAT team vastly improves the Seal Beach Police Department's ability to respond to
difficult tactical situations; however, as with any task force, this also carries with it some
liability issues that have to be carefully considered and dealt with.
The WC-SWAT Protocol (the ''Protocol'') was drafted by the Fountain Valley City
Attorney after meeting with legal counsel and the Chiefs of Police for each of the other
participating cities or parties. The Protocol provides that each city is responsible for the
acts of its own employees or agents and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
other parties to the Protocol from any claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, costs,
and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, for the negligence of their employees
or agents. (protocol Paragraph 7.) Each participating city shall also be responsible for its
own officers' worker's compensation coverage and benefits. (protocol Paragraph 8.)
e
The Protocol language is necessary because, under Government Code ~895.6, unless the
public agencies to an agreement, expressly provide otherwise, a public entity is entitled to
contribution from each of the other public entities for any judgment for damages caused
2
e
by a negligent or wrongful act or omission by any of the other participating agencies or
their members that is in excess of that participating agency's pro rata share.
In Authority For California Cities Excess Liability v. City of Los Altos (2006) 136
Cal.App.4th 1207, a Palo Alto reserve officer was accidentally shot to death by a
Mountain View Officer during a training session for a SWAT task force involving the
cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Los Altos. (ld. at pp. 1210-11.) The plaintiff, an
excess insurance carrier, brought suit against Los Altos, even though none ofits officers
were involved in the death of the reserve officer, for contribution under Government
Code ~895.6 for a settlement with the heirs of the deceased officer. (ld. at p. 1211.)
The court ultimately held that Los Altos was not obligated to contribute to the settlement
because its Chief of Police did not have authority to approve the task force agreement
without approval by the City Council, which did not occur in that case. (ld. at p. 1215.)
While Los Altos ultimately did not have to contribute towards the settlement, this case
illustrates the importance of the above language in the Protocol that each agency is
responsible for the liabilities caused by its own officers and shall indemnify and defend
the other agencies for any such occurrence. Without this language, Seal Beach (or one of
the other participating parties) could be forced to contribute to an incident that was not
caused by one of its officers.
e
Additionally, the Protocol does not create a Joint Powers Agency ("JPA"), unlike the
Integrated Law & Justice Agency for Orange County ("ILJAOC") that was approved by
the Council in February 2006. A JP A has a separate legislative body and contractual
powers and thus must comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act. (McKee v. Los Angeles
Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (2005) 134
Cal.App.4th 354 [holding that the Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police
Apprehension Crime Task Force was a JP A with its own legislative body and contractual
powers that must comply with the Ralph M. Brown ActJ.)
WC-SW AT does not have a separate governing board or contractual powers. The task
force only has those powers given to it by its member cities (and at public meetings by
those cities in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.)
WC-SWAT addresses the need for additionl!1 SWAT team capability in Seal Beach for
increased public safety. All with any task force, there are liability risks to each of the
participating cities, including Seal Beach. However, the Protocol appears to address the
liability concerns in a reasoned way that is fair to each of the participating parties so that
each city does not have to contribute to a liability incident that is not caused by its
employees or agents.
Public notice, other than that required for all items on a City Council agenda under the
Ralp,h M. Brown Act, is not required for this action.
e
3
e
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved both this staff report and the attached
Protocol.
Allowing the Chief of Police to sign the WC-SW AT Protocol and therefore authorizing
the Seal Beach Police Department to become a participating member of the WC-SW AT
team brings many benefits to the City. They include:
. a more efficient utilization of police services and resources
. an enhanced degree of cooperation between neighboring law enforcement
agencies in the participating communities
. a more timely and effective response to calls for specialized police assistance
. adequate staffing levels of highly trained law enforcement officers to resolve
crisis and high-risk situations; and,
. a high level of immunity from liability attainable for the City and its officers
involved in a high risk or critical incident.
e
Advantages to participation in the WC-SW AT include the following:
. Local control and autonomy over deployment decisions involving high-risk,
dangerous, situations. Deployment decisions include issues of risk management,
liability, property damage, and risk of life. Local decision makers share a
'paternal' ownership over incidents in their own communities.
. A relatively small financial investment in equipment and labor.
· Pooled resources allow any participating agency to respond to a crisis with a full,
directed response with plenty of reserved resources for other simultaneous
activity. In other words, a SWAT call-out will not deplete the Patrol forces of any
one member party, leaving that party plenty of staff for other assignments.
· Having the collateral opportunity to participate in a 'special' unit improves
recruitment and retention efforts for quality employees.
· Improved skill-bases and professionalism not only for direct participants but also
for staff not assigned SWAT respOnsibilities, learning new techniques and
processes from their workmates.
. Although not necessarily an advantage, the cities incur some expense for
equipment and training. (However, Staff has budgeted grant monies to cover all
SWAT expenses. There would be no generalfund impact!)
Disadvantages to non-participation include:
· An extreme lack of autonomy and control over deployment decisions. A foreign
SWAT team will only operate under its own rules and protocols, which may not
be in the short and long-term best interests of the City of Seal Beach.
· A small, fiscal savings (even though our intent is to not impact our genera/fUnd).
e
4
e
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact relating to time spent on SWAT activities conducted in other cities
cannot be fully determined. However, under the terms of our Supplemental Law
Enforcement Services Fund grant, renewed every year for the past decade with no
changes expected into the distant future, we are able to use this grant money to offset any
incurred costs, and budgeted accordingly. The need to backfill or provide overtime for
these activities is dependent on Seal Beach officers being used in SWAT operations in
the other communities; however, the regionalization of SWAT services has allowed for a
reduction in the number of assigned personnel from each of the participating cities. For
example, Cypress reduced its stand-alone commitment of eighteen officers to currently
eight and a reallocation of those positions to other duties.
The majority of expenses are in salary. SWAT Officers train ten (10) hours a month and
attend an initial eighty-hour SWAT school. This can be mitigated somewhat if an officer
adjusts his schedule or trains on a "flex" day. The City of Seal Beach may possess
surplus equipment that would help to defray costs for the initial purchase of equipment.
Seal Beach's 'share' of personnel to the effort is minimally three police officers.
e
Startup costs of$34,740 are estimated and likely to be lower based on current equipment
inventories. Annual costs thereafter will be significantly lower - again, covered by grant
monies. The actual cost should vary well below the $34,740 depending on the salary
range of officer's selected to participate and the amount of equipment purchased.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the Chief of Police to sign the Protocol
agreement and in doing so authorize the Seal Beach Police Department to become the
fifth participating agency on the West (Orange) County (Regional) SWAT team.
A copy of the existing Protocol signed by Cypress, Los Alamitos, Fountain Valley, and
Westminster is attached.
A copy of the necessary Protocol Amendment to be signed by the Chief of Police is
attached.
~e:.~
NOTED AND APPROVED:
e
,<>-.f~ 7
David Carmany, City Manager
5
e
RESOLUTION NUMBER
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNcn. OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO SIGN
THE WEST (ORANGE) COUNTY (REGIONAL) S.W.A.T.
PROTOCOL
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION I. The City Council hereby approves the Seol Beach Police
Department's participation in the West (Onmge) County (Regional) SWAT Protocol.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Seal Beach Police
Department'o Chief of Police to sign the West (Orange) County (Regional) S.W.A.T.
Protocol making the City of Seal Beach and its police department 0 signatory party to the
West (Orange) County (Regional) S.W.A.T. Protocol.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Seal Besch, at a
regular meeting held on the 24th day of Senr..mh., , 2007 by the following
Vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
e
ABSENT: COUNCll..MEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS
Moyor
A TIEST:
City Clerk
STATEOFCALIFORNIA I
COUNTY OF ORANGE I SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH I
I. Linda Devine, City Clerk for the City of Seal Besch, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in
the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Seal Beach at a regular meeting held on the 24th doy of Senlember
2007.
e
City Clerk
e
e
e
AMENDMENT NO.2
TO THE
WEST COUNTY S.W.A.T. PROTOCOL
This Second Amendment to the West County S.W.A.T. Protocol ("Second Amendment")
is entered into on this _ day of , 2007, by and between the CITY OF
CYPRESS, the CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY, the CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, the CITY
OF WESTMINISTER, the WEST CITIES COMMUNICATIONS CENTER JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITY, and the CITY OF SEAL BEACH (collectively referred to herein
as "Parties").
Recitals
WHEREAS, the cities of Cypress, Fountain Valley, Los Alamitos and
Westminster entered into that certain West County S.W.A.T. Protocol, effective July 11,
2006, to support a mutual protocol for S.W.A.T. responses within the areas served by
the police departments for such cities;
WHEREAS, the Seal Beach Police Department ("SBPD") is a municipal police
agency which desires to participate in the West County S.W.A.T. Protocol as a
signatory;
WHEREAS, the Seal Beach Police Department will participate as a contributing
member of the West County S.wAT. and has reviewed the Attorney General's
Commission on Special Weapons and Tactics Final Report dated September 10, 2002
and desires to implement certain of those recommendations;
WHEREAS, the Seal Beach Police Department's Chief of Police as a signatory,
also wants to avoid the result reached by the court in Authority for California Cities
Excess Liability v. City of Los Altos 2006 DJDAR 2115;
WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that Seal Beach Police Department
should be a party to the West County S.wAT. Protocol and the Parties now desire to
amend the West County S.wAT. Protocol to accomplish this.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby amend the West County S.wAT.
Protocol as follows:
1. Addition of Seal Beach Police DeDartment as a Partv. The Seal Beach Police
Department is hereby added as a party to the West County S.W.A.T. Protocol. Seal
Beach Police Department hereby agrees to comply with and be subject to the provisions
of the West County S.WAT. Protocol.
2. Remainina Provisions of West County S.W.A.T. Protocol. Except as
otherwise specifically set forth in this Second Amendment, the remaining provisions of
the West County S.W.A.T. Protocol shall remain in full force and effect.
- 1 -
e
CITY OF CYPRESS
Rick Hicks
Chief of Police
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
Paul Sorrell
Chief of Police
CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS
Todd Mattern
Chief of Police
e CITY OF SEAL BEACH
e
Jeffrey Kirkpatrick
Chief of Police
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
Andrew Hall
Chief of Police
Date
Date
Date
Date
o
Date
WEST CITIES COMMUNICATIONS CENTER JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Lisa Barr
Dispatch Administrator
Date
-2-
e
~TCOUNTYSWATPROTOCOL
to\plj"\(
. II II "
~ ~ -
The foJlowing represents the SWAT Protocol for the police departments of
the CITY OF CYPRESS, the CITY OF FOUNTAIN V ALLEY, the CITY
OF LOS ALAMITOS, and the CITY OF WESTMINSTER.
Recitals
WHEREAS, geographic closeness, limited budgets, cultural and ethnic and
language factors all support a mutual protocol for SWAT response within the areas
served by their departments;
WHEREAS, the chiefs that are signatory also desire to share experience,
resources, training and to establish uniformity in procedure for SWAT response;
e
WHEREAS, the chiefs that are signatory do not desire to establish a new
government entity that might be subject to the Brown Act, and desire to avoid the results
reached in McKee 1/. Los Angeles Metro (2005) 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 47;
WHEREAS, the chiefs that are signatory have reviewed the attorney General's
Commission on Special Weapons and Tactics Final Report dated September 10, 2002 and
desire to implement certain of those recommendations;
WHEREAS, the chiefs that are signatory also want to avoid creating a liability-
creating joint powers agreement and do also desire to avoid the result reached by the
court in Authority for California Cities Excess Liability v. City of Los Altos 2006 DJDAR
2115;
WHEREAS, the signatory chiefs do desire to establish clear policies for training
and SWAT activations; and
e
1
e
NOW, THEREFORE, the chiefs that are signatory do hereby establish the
following protocols for SWAT within the respective areas served by their departmen\s:
1. SWAT deflDed. For purposes of this protocol, SWAT shall mean special
weapons and tactical teams and includes crisis negotiators and tactical dispatchers. A
SWAT team is a designated unit of law enforcement officers that is specifically trained
and equipped to work as a coordinated team to respond to critical incidents including, but
not limited to, hostage taking, barricaded suspects, snipers, terrorist acts and other high-
risk incidents. As a matter of agency policy, such a unit may be used to serve high-risk
warrants, both search and arrest, where publio and officer safety issues compel the use of
such a unit.
e
2. PurnoseJMission Statement. It is the intent of the Parties to this Protocol to
secure, through the mechanisms hereby created:
a. A more efficient utilization of police services and resources;
b. An enhanced degree of cooperation between law enforcement agencies
within the participating communities;
c. A more timely and effective response to calls for specialized police
assistance;
d. Adequate manpower levels of highly trained law enforcement officers to
resolve crisis and high-risk situations; and
e. Enhance the degree of response to demands for special weapons and
tactics teams to handle high-risk situations.
3. Effective date/termination. This Protocol shall be effective on the date the last
chief signs. Unless any chief notifies the other chiefs of his/her withdrawal from this
Protocol, this Protocol shall govern the operation of SWAT within those cities served by
the departments commanded by the chiefs that have signed this Protocol until that chief
notifies the others of his intent not to honor this Protocol. Each chief shall endeavor to
give ninety (90) days notice before withdrawing but each chief reserves the right to
e withdraw immediately if helshe determines it is necessary.
2
e
4. Policv develooment and imolementation. The signatory chiefs or their
designated representatives, shall establish policies for training, command and respons.e.
For as long as those departments are signatory to this protocol, those policies shall be
observed. Such policies shall be signed by all chiefs whose departments are subject to
this Protocol before those policies shall be effective. Each chief shall ensure that hislher
department has adopted general orders, regulations or similar rules incorporating said
policies or providing that persons serving in a SWAT capacity shall observe said policies
as if a Department Policy or Order. In 'the event of conflicts between a general
department policy and a SWAT policy, the SWAT policy shall prevail unless a clear
contrary intent is expressed in the department policy.
e
5. Policy subiect matter. Those policies may address all matters pertaining to
operational details, including but not limited to:
a) Selection of personnel;
b) Training and physical conditioning;
c) Manpower assigned by each department to the SWAT function;
d) Activation;
e) Chain of command; and
f) Debriefings or investigations into SWAT or related incidents or the
response thereto.
6. Policy maintenance and dissemination. Each policy shall be numbered or
otherwise maintained in a booklet or other format so that appropriate personnel shall
know which policies are in effect. Each chief signatory shall ensure that appropriate
personnel within that chief's department receive a copy of the policies. The chiefs shall
maintain those policies in a uniform manner.
e
3
e
7. Civil Liabilitv. In contemplation of the provisions of Section 895,2 of the
Government Code imposing certain tort liability jointly upon public entities solely ~y
reason of such entities being parties to an agreement as defined by Section 895 of the
Government Code, the parties hereto, pursuant to the authorization contained in Section
895.4 and 895.6 of the Government Code, agree that each party shall be liable for any
damages including, but not limited to, claims, fees, and costs resulting from the negligent
or wrongful acts or omissions of their employees or agents in the performance of this
Protocol, and each party shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other parties from
such claims, demands, damages, losses, liabilities, costs and expenses including
reasonable attorneys' fees, for their negligence. The parties agree that the contribution as
provided by Government Code Section 895.6 shall not apply.
e
8. Workers Comnensation and other city benefits. Each City shall be responsible
for the workers compensation coverage and benefits for its own employees participating
in this Protocol and each shall indemnify and hold the other cities harmless for any
claims for such coverage or benefits as well as for other city benefits, which may be
claimed by an employee by virtue of participating in this Protocol. To the maximum
extent perrnitted by law, and consistent with their intent to cooperate with one another
without forming a separate entity, the parties agree that the other parties shall not be
considered "third parties" for purposes of imposing worker's compensation liability on
any party except the entity employing an employee who may be injured during any joint
action of the parties' SWAT trained or designated employees. In addition, each party
shall be solely responsible for, and will defend and indemnify all other parties hereto
against any claims for, wages, overtime or any other form of compensation which may be
sought by that party's employees in performing this agreement.
9. City Council annroval. The City Council of each city shall approve or ratify the
provisions of Paragraphs 7 and 8 and may ratify the other provisions of this Protocol. No
such ratification shall have the intent or effect of forming a separate legal entity or joint
powers authority.
e
4
e
e
e
10. Intel!ration and SUDersedure. This Protocol shall supersede the previous
Memorandum of Understanding dated November 17, 2004, This Protocol is intended ~o
be supplemented by policies adopted by the chiefs. Any existing policies or procedures
implementing the previous Memorandum of Understanding shall remain in existence
until superseded or repealed.
PASSED and ADOPrED this
CITY OF CYPRESS
6lJIhfP&..
Chief of Police
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
/C/ d ~
. ,
Chief of Police
CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS
.~Q. ~....9'
Chief of Police
crITT\~
day of
2006.
'..I :5". 0 &
Date
?:--I /-0 ~
Date
'1. .'., - \J L
Date
b }o ~ 060
Chief of Police
Date
5