Jentur Larbor Received August 8, 2007 Aug 1 5 2007 Ventura County Grand Jury*

Recommendations 7

• R01
  of its property and facilities... Already Implemented The District has considered and will periodically consider the feasibility of reinstating 24-hour patrol coverage of its property and facilities. The following programs have been considered in the past two years: Changing the Harbor Patrol from a 4/10 schedule to a 5/8 schedule and increasing staffing Hiring a private security company to provide patrolling responsibilities Changing the Harbor Patrol to a 24-hour shift, which, because of "sleep • hours", would reduce the number of patrolling hours? Thus far, the Board is pleased with current coverage. Although 24-hour staffing was originally discontinued for budgetary constraints, the current system offers the following benefits to the public and the District's employees. 1. The District provides a minimum of two Harbor Patrol Officers on duty for the hours that the Operations Center is staffed and up to four officers on weekends; 2. Turn over in the Harbor Patrol is low. This is in no small part attributable to the 4/10 schedule and the fact that the officers do not have to work graveyard shifts 3. Staff is better utilized during busier hours instead of being underutilized during the early morning hours. Calls for service have been analyzed several times in the past. Each analysis indicated that 0.5% of calls for service occurred from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The District is currently negotiating with the S.E.I.U. to provide a means of designating a second On Call Officer as an enhancement to our 20-hour/7-day program. Specifically, the second on call officer would respond in the rare Port District Response to Grand Jury Report occasions when a second officer would be needed to handle an after-hours emergency.
• R1
  The District provides a minimum of two Harbor Patrol Officers on duty for the hours that the Operations Center is staffed and up to four officers on weekends;
• R02
  The District should execute formal agreements with VPD and VCSD defining operational and jurisdictional interface between the Harbor Patrol and those agencies. Ventura Police Department: Will Be Implemented—Estimated Completion: October 30, 2007 District and Police Staff have already met to discuss implementing these policies. The foundation for these policies is available in each Department's past procedure manuals. This information will be reviewed and updated as necessary with the intent of implementing it into usable policies and procedures. Ventura Sheriff's Department: Will Not Be Implemented Section 510 of the Harbors and Navigation Code provides the framework for the necessary working relationship between the Harbor Patrol and the Sheriff's Department. An independent policy is unnecessary. The District should revise its official Web site to describe fully the mission,
• R2
  Turn over in the Harbor Patrol is low. This is in no small part attributable to the 4/10 schedule and the fact that the officers do not have to work graveyard shifts
• R03
  responsibilities, and enforcement duties of the Harbor Patrol. Implemented on: To be announced. Need to work with Web designer, but this should be in place before we send this report. The District should consider authorizing Harbor Patrol Officers to carry firearms
• R3
  Staff is better utilized during busier hours instead of being underutilized during the early morning hours. Calls for service have been analyzed several times in the past. Each analysis indicated that 0.5% of calls for service occurred from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The District is currently negotiating with the S.E.I.U. to provide a means of designating a second On Call Officer as an enhancement to our 20-hour/7-day program. Specifically, the second on call officer would respond in the rare Port District Response to Grand Jury Report occasions when a second officer would be needed to handle an after-hours emergency. R-02 The District should execute formal agreements with VPD and VCSD defining operational and jurisdictional interface between the Harbor Patrol and those agencies. Ventura Police Department: Will Be Implemented—Estimated Completion: October 30, 2007 District and Police Staff have already met to discuss implementing these policies. The foundation for these policies is available in each Department's past procedure manuals. This information will be reviewed and updated as necessary with the intent of implementing it into usable policies and procedures. Ventura Sheriff's Department: Will Not Be Implemented Section 510 of the Harbors and Navigation Code provides the framework for the necessary working relationship between the Harbor Patrol and the Sheriff's Department. An independent policy is unnecessary. The District should revise its official Web site to describe fully the mission, R-03 responsibilities, and enforcement duties of the Harbor Patrol. Implemented on: To be announced. Need to work with Web designer, but this should be in place before we send this report. The District should consider authorizing Harbor Patrol Officers to carry firearms R-04 while on duty. Less lethal devices, such as personal impact weapons or tasers, should be available to officers... Consideration of Carrying Firearms: Already Implemented In 1999 to 2000, the District considered providing firearms to its officers or looking for alternatives to providing an armed presence within the Harbor. The primary deterrents to arming the Harbor Patrol is the nature of the job, the size of the Department, the availability and ability to provide initial and continuing training or drills. The Harbor Patrol is not a police force. It is primarily a rescue agency that has limited law enforcement authority, primarily focused on enforcement of the Ventura Harbor Ordinance and boating laws. The District does not feel it is necessary or prudent to provide the officers with deadly force capability in order to provide those primary services. The officers were issued batons at one time. That practice was discontinued about a year ago, specifically because of our inability to provide continuing training or drills. Over the years, the District has considered several options to providing an armed force within the Harbor. The District fully funded a Storefront and a 40-hour Storefront Officer at Ventura Harbor Village. That program did have some positive effects in the Harbor and provided an excellent liaison between the Port District and the Police Department. However, in 1996, in order to meet budgetary constraints, the District dismissed one full-time administrative employee, and the Storefront funding was also stopped in lieu of terminating any additional District employees. Port District Response to Grand Jury Report
• R04
  while on duty. Less lethal devices, such as personal impact weapons or tasers, should be available to officers... Consideration of Carrying Firearms: Already Implemented In 1999 to 2000, the District considered providing firearms to its officers or looking for alternatives to providing an armed presence within the Harbor. The primary deterrents to arming the Harbor Patrol is the nature of the job, the size of the Department, the availability and ability to provide initial and continuing training or drills. The Harbor Patrol is not a police force. It is primarily a rescue agency that has limited law enforcement authority, primarily focused on enforcement of the Ventura Harbor Ordinance and boating laws. The District does not feel it is necessary or prudent to provide the officers with deadly force capability in order to provide those primary services. The officers were issued batons at one time. That practice was discontinued about a year ago, specifically because of our inability to provide continuing training or drills. Over the years, the District has considered several options to providing an armed force within the Harbor. The District fully funded a Storefront and a 40-hour Storefront Officer at Ventura Harbor Village. That program did have some positive effects in the Harbor and provided an excellent liaison between the Port District and the Police Department. However, in 1996, in order to meet budgetary constraints, the District dismissed one full-time administrative employee, and the Storefront funding was also stopped in lieu of terminating any additional District employees. Port District Response to Grand Jury Report