Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants Drugs Bodycams topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LAJC approves applying for heroin, meth and body‑camera grants to fund investigator and jail cameras
Summary
The committee authorized staff to apply for and, if awarded, accept multiple grants including a DOJ heroin grant (ceiling $4 million), a meth grant (ceiling $2 million) and a matching body‑worn‑camera grant; proposal would fund a full‑time drug investigator and shared jail cameras.
The Law, Justice and Safety Committee voted to allow county staff to apply for three grant opportunities and to accept awards if offered: a heroin grant with an award ceiling up to $4,000,000, a meth grant with a ceiling up to $2,000,000, and a matching grant program to replace failing body‑worn cameras used by jail staff.
Sheriff Porter told the committee that the department’s shared jail cameras are failing with increasing frequency and that the sheriff’s office wants to acquire four to five shared units for detainee monitoring and staff use. The sheriff estimated each camera at about $900 and said the grant would likely cover part of the cost; he said the department would pursue jail‑assessment funds or budget allocations to cover any required match.
On the enforcement grants, sheriff staff described a plan to use grant proceeds primarily for personnel: the department seeks to fund a full‑time drug investigator position for up to 10 years if an award is large enough. Sheriff staff said the grants could finance a vehicle, equipment and the position’s salary and benefits; supervisors asked staff to ensure grant applications include full fringe and workers’‑compensation costs so the county can evaluate long‑term staffing obligations.
Administrator Clint Langrick told the committee that county board rules require a separate county‑board resolution to add a permanent position if a grant award leads to a long‑term hire. Langrick and others said any grant‑funded position should be presented to the county board with clear language that the position may terminate when grant funding ends.
The committee voted to authorize both application and acceptance of awards, and instructed staff to prepare any required county‑board resolutions that would follow an award.
The committee also discussed grant‑writing capacity: staff noted the county’s grant writer position had recently been vacated and said county staff would need help preparing the applications; one supervisor offered to assist with application work if needed.
Committee members asked staff to confirm whether the camera grant is a reimbursement program or a purchase‑then‑reimbursement model, and to provide more detail on match percentages and award timing before final acceptance of any grant.
