Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09121995 - SD4 TO: BO ARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra CostaFROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE "* County DATE: September 12, 1995 >. y SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE 1994-1995 GRAND JURY: NO. 9507, "CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM" SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt this report of our Committee as the Board of Supervisors ' response to the Report of the 1994-1995 Grand Jury No. 9507 , "Contra Costa County Criminal Justice System. " 2 . Retain this item as a referral to our Committee. BACKGROUND: The 1994-1995 Grand Jury filed the above report, which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the Internal Operations Committee., On August 7, 1995 our Committee met to discuss the recommendations and review proposed responses . At the conclusion of those discussions, we prepared this report utilizing a format suggested by a former Grand Jury, which clearly specifies : A. Whether the recommendation is accepted or adopted; B. If the recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will bd responsible for implementation of a definite target date; C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within the calendar year; and D. The reason for not adopting a recommendation. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE VAXDae:S OTTHER AU NIER JkRO-3ERS' SIGNATURE S : ACTION OF BOARD ON September 12 , 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER APPROVED the recommendations as presented above which included the referral- to the Finance Committee funding for court security (See pages 4 and 5 of the attached report) . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: .777 :4-' + NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: Z ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTEDaII Contact: County Administrator PHIL BAT HELOR,CLERK OF THE BOP{RD OF cc: Superior Court Presiding Judge SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Grand Jury Foreperson tCounty Counsel BY DEPUTY "CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM" REPORT NO. 9507 The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that for: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 : The County Board of Supervisors should not decrease, but immediately increase, the budgets applicable to our criminal justice system departments . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The Board is responsible for providing funding for all the competing needs of the County departments. The Board was mindful of the protection of the County' s citizens in adopting the budget. The budgets of all the major justice agencies have been increased in FY 1995/96 over FY 1994-95. The following table shows these increases : 94-95 95-96 Adopted Proposed Gross Gross Agency Budget Budget Increase Sheriff-Coroner $ 70,667,283 $ 75,686,499 $ 5,019,216 District Attorney 12,708, 115 13,639,280 931,216 Public Defender 8,389,904 9,632,997 1,243,093 Probation 25 ,243,789 25, 341,929 98, 140 Trial Courts : 25,267,529 27, 106, 136 1,838,607 Superior Court Municipal Court County Clerk Total $142,,276,620 $151,406,841 $10,968,828 RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 : The Board immediately impanel an independent advisory board to seek out additional funding sources . These sources may include funding from other County departments and/or additional county-wide tax revenues . -1- RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Board agrees that additional funding sources are needed. The Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator's Office and various Board appointed advisory groups aggressively pursue outside revenue to fund essential County programs, including public protection. In fact, without such effort, the increases in the justice budgets detailed above would not have been possible. Increasing countywide tax revenue raising authority of the Board of Supervisors requires action of the State Legislature which continues to be unresponsive to granting counties any such authority. The Board makes the commitment to review the entire criminal justice system in light of the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations . DETENTION FACILITIES: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 : The West County Detention booking facility be opened immediately and used, on a trial basis, during heavy intake periods to eliminate the bottleneck at the Martinez Detention Facility booking center and to decrease the county-wide impact on local jurisdictions . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The primary and insurmountable obstacle to opening a second booking unit is money. Pursuant to Government Code 29550, arresting agencies are required to bear booking costs but, because of restrictions in the law, the County can recover from non-County arresting agencies only about 30% of its cost to operate the booking unit. As of 1993-94, the cost of providing one booking location for the County was $3, 156,776 . Spread over 22,961 annual bookings, the average cost per booking is $137 . Based on the Sheriff 's estimates of personnel costs for providing a second booking location at the West County Detention Facility, the booking cost would rise to $5 . 1 million and, if spread over approximately 23,000 annual bookings, would result in an increased booking fee of $222 for all chargeable bookings for all agencies . This includes Central, East and South County police agencies who would not realize any transport costs savings . -2- Moreover, the County has no money to pay for its share of the increased costs estimated at $1 . 3 million, without making cuts in patrol or other vital County services . The Board is not aware that the cities would be agreeable to paying a booking fee increase of the magnitude that would be required to open a second booking unit, but suggest that such a unit could be opened only if the cities would agree to bear the total cost. The Board refers this matter to the Internal Operations Committee to schedule meetings to include West County cities to consider opening the WCDF Booking Center and related issues such as transportation costs . RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 : Within sixty (60) days, the Board of Supervisors appoint a Board to review and standardize booking procedures and documentation for the County and Cities . All Police Departments should adopt standardized procedures and booking forms consistent with the Sheriff 's Department. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Board agrees that police departments should adopt standardized procedures and booking forms consistent with the Sheriff Department' s, but, that those departments have both the authority and expertise to do so. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: Within sixty (60) days, the Board of Supervisors appoint an independent review board to ,study the Detention Facilities, and determine how the existing facilities can best be utilized to serve the County's needs . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Board agrees that use of existing facilities requires constant review but that the Board and the citizens of Contra Costa County believe their elected Sheriff has the responsibility, staff and expertise to make that determination. RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 : Additional funding be allocated to maintain and operate the County's existing facilities in a safe and well maintained manner for the health, safety and welfare of the personnel and inmates . -3- RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Board is committed to maintaining and operating all facilities for all their occupants in a healthy and safe manner and funds are allocated each year to do so. MUNICIPAL/SUPERIOR COURT/POLICE HOLDING CELLS: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 : Within one hundred twenty ( 120) days, metal detectors be installed and used at all public entrances to all Court Buildings . Consider adopting one of the following alternatives: 1 . Supervisor DeSaulnier's recommendation: RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. Court facilities have a much higher level of security than other County public buildings with a potential for workplace violence. There is currently in place in the courts a complex system of bailiffs, internal security and emergency response plans, including the use of a mobile metal detector screening system, all under the aegis of the Sheriff 's Department. Court building security is an eligible funding category of the State Trial Court Funding Program, however, to date, the State has not seen fit to provide money for this purpose despite their assumption of control of court funding. Nonetheless, the courts have applied for FY 1996/97 funds for building security. To provide permanent metal detector screening for the court locations of this County, three Superior Court, five Municipal Court and two Juvenile Court locations, would require a general fund expenditure of at least $1 million for start-up costs and $3.5 to $4 million a year for permanent operating staff . These funds are simply not available. Reallocating funds would require cuts in other essential County services which, in turn, would jeopardize public safety. This would be contrary to the Grand Jury's intention. -4- This matter is referred to the Finance Committee to review security funding and to establish an advisory committee to include the Courts, Sheriff, District Attorney, Public Defender and Probation to prepare a long-range plan for court security and related costs and funding sources. 2 . Supervisor Rogers ' recommendation: RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. Court facilities have a much higher level of security than other County public buildings with a potential for workplace violence. There is currently in place in the courts a complex system of bailiffs, internal security and emergency response plans, including the use of a mobile metal detector screening system, all under the aegis of the Sheriff's Department. Court building security is an eligible funding category of the State Trial Court Funding Program, however, to date, the State has not seen fit to provide money for this purpose despite their assumption of control of court funding. Nonetheless, the courts have applied for FY 1996/97 funds for building security. To provide permanent metal detector screening for the court locations of this County, three Superior Court, five Municipal Court and two Juvenile Court locations, would require a general fund expenditure of at least $1 million for start-up costs and $3 .5 to $4 million a year for permanent operating staff . These funds are simply not available. Reallocating funds would require cuts in other essential County services which, in turn, would jeopardize public safety. This would be contrary to the Grand Jury's intention. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 : Within 30 days, bring fire inspections up to date in all Court facilities . RESPONSE: A. The recommendation is accepted. B. All court facilities have been inspected by the State Fire Marshal and/or the appropriate fire protection district. The General Services Director is directed to obtain evidence of inspections . -5- RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 : Within 30 days, have the elevators in the Old Courthouse inspected and recertified. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. Both elevators in the County Courthouse have been and continue to be certified by the State of California. Copies of the current permits are attached to this report as "Attachment A. " RECOMMENDATION NO. 4: Within sixty (60) days of formation, the independent review board should study all County holding facilities, prisoner transportation procedures and court rooms used for criminal trials in order to address public safety concerns over inmate contact with the public. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Board agrees that public safety concerns over inmate contact with the public should be addressed but that the Board and the citizens of the County believe their elected Sheriff has the responsibility, staff and expertise to make that determination. RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 : Within 30 days, the County owned video arraignment system be put into regular use to reduce movement of high-risk prisoners . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. So-called "high risk" prisoners need to be transported from County Jail to remote Municipal Court locations for a variety of court hearings other than arraignment. A more appropriate solution to reduce movement of high-risk prisoners is not to, transport prisoners at all. The division of our court system into Municipal and Superior Courts makes this difficult. The County Administrator has suggested that the Superior and Municipal Courts consolidate their operations both administratively and judicially. Indeed, this consolidation is now mandated by the State Judicial Council, but not until 1999 . This would allow all the courts in the County to be operated as one court system enabling the most efficient and effective use of courtrooms and court personnel as well as -6- personnel of other justice agencies, such as the Sheriff ' s Department. We believe this is something the courts should do as rapidly as possible. This would allow courtrooms in Martinez to be used for those high-risk cases which currently go to other Municipal Court locations . SHERIFF'S OFFICE/POLICE DEPARTMENTS: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 : Within 30 days, fire inspections shall be brought up to date and kept current. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 : Each responsible jurisdiction shall seek immediate funding to provide adequate personnel, safety equipment, vehicles, computers and other equipment essential to performing their duties through reallocation of internal budgets or additional tax revenues . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Sheriff intends to initiate a program to replace 150 mobile and portable radios in the near future. PROBATION DEPARTMENT/JUVENILE FACILITIES: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 : The Board of Supervisors continue to seek funds to modernize or replace County Juvenile Detention Facilities. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 : Within sixty (60) days, the Board of Supervisors implement the Juvenile Justice system Continuum of Services plan prepared by the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee. -7- RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Board has approved the Continuum of Care plan in the Juvenile Justice System. The Grand Jury recommends it be implemented in 60 days . Implementation of the Juvenile Hall replacement part of the plan will be deferred until the $46 million cost is funded. Programs included in the Continuum will be implemented as funds become available. Various grant development initiations are currently underway to accomplish this . RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 : Within 30 days, a fire inspection shall be performed at Byron Boys ' Ranch immediately. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The California State Fire Marshal Adult/Juvenile Detention Facility Inspector' s Report is attached as "Attachment B. " RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 : Within six (6) months, the Board of Supervisors review, and restructure if necessary, the entire Probation Department program in order to better focus the Department on the needs of the community. If the program cannot be adequately funded, -the program should be revised accordingly. The Board should consider having Probation Officers concentrate on the handling of Court cases in the pre-sentencing phase and .juvenile probation. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. Restructuring of the Probation Department program is not under the sole authority of the County Board of Supervisors. Any restructuring or reorganization discussions must include the Board, the Superior Court, the County Probation Officer, and the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee. However, we agree with the spirit of the recommendation. We will continue to work with the Court and others to make probation services, however administered, responsive to community and public safety needs . -8- RECOMMENDATION NO. 5: Within 90 days, separate quarters be provided for the younger boys at Byron Boys ' Ranch. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Board of Supervisors concurs with the County Probation Officer who does not feel that this is practical or needed. However, care should be taken by the Probation Department and the Juvenile Court to assure that only appropriate cases be considered for and committed to the Ranch. Boys who might be too young or too immature should be excluded from consideration and alternative programs should be sought. Such alternatives could include diversion programs operated by cities . RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 : Within 6 months, the County develop and implement a program to place more emphasis on re-entry into the community after detention, and greater assistance and supervision provided to youth to encourage them to stay in school and to develop a more productive life. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Board concurs with the need for improved reentry services . Development and implementation of such programs relate to the response to Recommendation No. 4 . Several grant proposals developed by the County Administrator's Office (East Bay Comprehensive Communities, Healthy Start, Safe Futures, Boot Camp planning, and CCC Juvenile Conservation Corps) address the issue of post incarceration care related to school attendance and employment. Hopefully, some funds will be awarded shortly. MARINE PATROL: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 : Within sixty (60) days, the Board of Supervisors appoint a committee to review the entire Marine Patrol program and its funding in order to increase law enforcement and public safety on the waterways . -9- RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. Marine Patrol coverage in Contra Costa County consists of four fully-trained Marine Patrol Deputies with six vessels assigned to the unit. During the winter months, two deputies are assigned to the delta and are supported by reserve deputies . During the summer months there are three deputies assigned and supported by reserve deputies . The deputies regularly patrol those portions of our delta waterways which are most heavily used. Vessel inspections and enforcement activity is ongoing, as evidenced by the 196 citations issued during the 93/94 season. The Bid process has been completed for the new vessel and funding is in place for its acquisition, use, and maintenance. There is widespread agreement among county sheriffs, the Coast Guard, Fish and Game, and Parks and Recreation officials that funds must be generated to cover the cost of enforcing our boating laws and that these funds must be reserved for purposes of boating safety only. To that end, the Sheriff is carrying forward legislation that will do just that: ACA 12 and AB 122 . Assembly Constitutional Amendment 12 would create a constitutionally protected trust fund, similar to the state highway trust fund, for all boating fuel tax and registration fees . This would prevent these monies from being used to balance the state budget or for any purposes not directly related to boating and waterway programs . Because of the collaborative effort among local enforcement agencies to get to this point, the Board sees little value in appointing another committee to study public safety on the waterways . RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 : The Sheri f f 's Department immediately grant Harbor Masters the power to cite offenders for safety and registration violations. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. We agree with the Sheriff that law enforcement is the responsibility of the Sheriff ' s Department. -10- ASI ACHM ENT A DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PERMIT TO OPERATE AN ELEVATOR ELEVATOR NUMBER: 043883 INSPECTION DATE: 09128194 ISSUE DATE: 10105194 PERMITEXPIRES: 09128/95 LOCATION: 725 COURT ST MARTINEZ, CA 94553 OWNERS ID: PASS California law requires that all elevators must have a valid permit visibly posted in the car. (Labor Code Sections 7300-7319). Please detach your new permit at the dotted line and post in elevator car. Retain this portion for your records. --- ---- --- -- -- - --- ---------------- - - ---- ----- - - - -- ---- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY&HEALTH INSPECTION: 043883 09/28/94 09128195 Elevator Number. ; , :'' '" 'ba a oHnspection Date Permit Expires { fl LOCATION: 725 COU a 54�� MARTINEZ Street Addre + m t ,; City of Town _.�f 5 LOAD PERMISSABLE: 002000 �4 0l3 80171 Pounds ~Persons ; Inspector DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER L PASS ;GCNRRA'IOR,F.LEC OVERIID TIZACTIO Type of Elevator ,OvinersId Power Type of Machine EV02 THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED IN ELEVATOR CAR DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PERMIT TO OPERATE AN ELEVATOR ELEVATOR NUMBER: 044604 INSPECTION DATE: 09128194 ISSUE DATE: 10105/94 PERMIT EXPIRES: 09128/95 LOCATION: 725 COURT ST MARTINEZ, CA 94553 OWNERS ID: PASS California law requires that all elevators must have a valid permit visibly posted in the car. (Labor Code Sections 7300-7319). Please detach your new permit at the dotted line and post in elevator car. Retain this portion for your records. 00, V-- -- - ----- -- - -- ------ -- - ---------------- - -------------------- --- - - - - - - - STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY&HEALTH INSPECTION: 044004 - ,:09/28/94 09/28/95 Elevator Number' Date ofInspection Date Permit Expires LOCATION: 725 COURT$.T MARTINET_ Street Addre$s --- City of Town LOAD PERMISSABLE: 003000 F 020 801.71 Pounds Inspector DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER '' '~PASS G ENERATOR,ELEC OVERIID 7RACTIO Type of Elevatorbwner�s Id Power Type of Machine E1102 THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED IN ELEVATOR CAR c ATTACHMENT B ADULTIJUVEMLE DETE"OH FACILITY INSPECTION REPORT ' 'ITM OF FA(21.I"1'#2'(Chat aft); Fact y: GAra ALLBI YOUTH HERE„#t FAC111TY I )3ali(MUSWUr4) 4491 9ixler Road/PO Box 398 jliowrF'a�(az{tt8�tt 4) rfA 9,514 _ Mnlle RAI(nMXcWjly) 43-07.,42-0001 .ouQ-020 I [ I Ucddft CeDS On[y S fl At ira PCCdon of ENS Mky Was c mduded ger the mandate of Seake 13145.1,til fa Heakh and Safety ODde,end applicable requimum*a 1hies 29 and 24. California Cade ctRegfttfans. (Ccdc aWrapdasp bac belom) f ] NO 0rel111-Z sdhy duff0cucics were noted. �� axe elestts~gcarttexl. ' I j Fire clamsce wk!Meld Wading diad;of dWwbWm Copies of U&mpon 4wR be submitted by the Loft cmdwing dm inTmmti m to am aWaprhdv bOffica lisped bWQw. Vhcrc firc}life saWy dc&jOwles are noted, a list of tim de#icteatexes ct�#t a =q=y this TeparL AI]UL1 FSU T'Y ONLY. JUVFX"PAUL'ONLY; I. Smote Fm Ivi"81 I. Stage FIM liar" Viral Reglon:e#Di; ica Coastal Regional Cott. Mated ab,tot 2300 Merced Street Sart Lem4m.C,ati 9S?'"J Sm Le dm CSA, 94577 2. FoaW of Corrctim '0W of Y+a th Audmity 6W 1 rcttt Ar.M. 4241 Wffikmobmu&Drive Sgce�s p,C J4 95$14 S te;tEa CA 95= At n: lack P rd Attn.- 'gym May I OfficW in O Targe of Faeiifty 3. +L ffcW in Charge of fte4 ty 4. Lwal Oweraa},ng Be* 4, Lacd Gumming Body S. Preaid3rtg%p!rfm tart Jnr 5. Pre tet Srtpetitrr Ccs n JwV 3M of In tion-� rrs"tnr Telephone#�r 'Tire falloMn&is to be wed as wide and is not intended to hmrporaft all applicable C3FM �+gtrirt`m : FAaf,= OUR ALLEN It UTH REHAB FRC!LITS YES NO NIA–cr-a–URD County Bryon T-378- Tanog _ -I. SaMM ct+nsarucubm We Md fine-resistWv,Eating t;tWOnM t irOOOK d and is maintained in good zed................... Z. proper inufm and cciling wish ruing is provided......,.....,............ j I 3. Vettiol,sltaft Wires am in goad trepair and fire assmblics az ............. ................._. 4. lPrqw cordfr cmtmcdon and qperrtg protectim am provWd aila d malwained.Dogd-ond ooMda do=exosed.201_. un # I 5. All ~=of qpu arw �od and fie of 6. bjkwM a.70 est'SWs are i1junikawd sad,mo incl................. 7. Corridors a.m tax wW as part of Ow air dlstribWan 8. .A t'tMe.VMS is pr*vi t d tO pati►relcM 211 t+v2 Twpew#. s fvo n locitd areas........................................................ C MEUiAN(CAi;,V.ECMM 9. yF1c'tYttla4�ts���.,pgs,smoleyy sc#�eyt}ecttvc��'aa�nad fiWar devb%amjT ■1 ild t,Itt,. e*1i[W711C`%cd and��d........,....a,.......................... 10. AR hwiting cooft and vcntilatim equipment Is maintained smWaawilr. Them are=viii deftc.ts.......................................... t l l 11. Mmt'ricd w,* g,flaturm and appliar=i an property iastalk-d a: a owed In a safe ......-................... D. HOMEMOMM 12.• Kitdm ttopA its,dam and fi tens are matntaincd in prcM,*n4fflon and are#ice of grew......... ........._..................... ��$ [ 1 �1 13. AH a tcxe tri pf wtaic ptabtc arocxr�ts of strnage._...............,. i4 [ j E. IFI ilNC�+`i'.IMMOMARM 14. AR first-a;d fire figtttlog oquip mat is propcdy WOW no maintained.. .................. 15. Ail Trc vttidgttiWwg sptc=are prvpetly rn0mahted andsetvic .----......._......................................................................... ....... 15. Z~ix alarn:system is proWy maintained............................................ 49 t I F. '1 'O 17. IUrc is at !cast oRe perwn can duty at all times an larwe is in custody w iq mem the tralift staztdards estaWbhod by the State lire M"sbol for geaeW ft and hte safety vWng -y* specitteaftf td the t city(Per T-15.CCR)........................-............ . rs COMMM A work or:ker wan made to con I^,te the r'ire extinguisher vervJ c e The do't'.ia'r9aay noted an the�� ns�eet�oa Report 95•iiiis been ATTACHMENT C OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Contra Costa County Administration Division 646-2402 Date: July 12, 1995 To: The b Honoral� -Superior Court 10 T �hn C. Minney, Presiding Judge -Superior n.: orable J. F. VanDePoel, ]edge-Superior Court From: Wa�e"p Subject: Grand Jury Report 95-07 Penal Code Section 933 requires the Office of the Sheriff to comment on the findings and recommendations of Grand jury Reports. Attached hereto you will find that response. Should any issues be raised, please contact this office. WER/mg CONTRA COSTA COUNTY cc: Board of Supervisors RECEIVED Scott 11 "r atAtWGrard jury Foreman JUL 17 1995 I OFFICE OF .COUNTY ADMIN ISTRAT UO, r The following is the Sheriff s Office response to Grand Jury Report 9507. FINDINGS DETENTION FACILITIES Finding No. 1 The Contra Costa County Sheriff s Department operates three adult detention facilities in Contra Costa County: * Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) is rated as a maximum-security facility located in downtown Martinez. * West County Detention Facility (WCDF) is rated as a medium-security facility located near Richmond/Point Pinole. * Marsh Creek Detention Facility (MCDF) is rated as a minimum-security facility located near Clayton. Response No. 1 We agree. Finding No. 2 The only new Detention,Facility in the County, the West County Detention Facility, was not built to handle today's more violent criminal. It was built with campus style units that require more manpower to operate than the (old style) tiered units. It does not have a lock-down capacity in case of a riot. Response No. 2 The West County Detention Facility is a medium-security facility and is not designed to handle inmates who present a risk to staff or other inmates. These inmates are held in the Martinez Detention Facility. The West County Detention Facility is a campus style facility. Except for the perimeter security the facility does not require more manpower than the Martinez Detention Facility. The Facility does not have the ability to effectively lock-down the inmate population. 1 Finding No. 3 The West County Detention Facility booking station has never been opened for use. The Sheriff s Department budget does not include the funds needed to staff it. The only booking facility currently in operation in the County is at the Martinez Detention Facility. This has a substantially negative impact throughout the County's law enforcement agencies. For example, this means that a Kensington policeman must call another officer on an overtime basis to cover their shift, while they take several hours to transport and book the prisoner in Martinez, and return to their shift in Kensington. Response No. 3 We Agree. Finding No. 4 The Detention Facility system in the County is not built to handle today's prison population. Most facilities are often overcrowded, holding more prisoners than they were originally built for. Some single bed cells now hold two beds. Dormitory units have been placed in the receiving area of the Martinez facility. Today 's criminal is more numerous, younger, and much more violent. Response No. 4 We agree. Finding No. 5 The Sheriff s Department is to be commended in the care they take with their facilities: A. The Martinez facility is very clean and well maintained. However, there are no surveillance monitors in the cells for visual contact and there are blind areas in the modules. B. The West County facility is also very clean. However, it has no maximum security area. 2 C. At the Marsh Creek Detention Facility, the Sheriff s Department uses much ingenuity in repairing what they can themselves with minimal outside assistance. Response No. 5 We agree. Finding No. 6 There is a closed circuit television system in place in several of the County detention facilities for remote video arraignments. Rooms are set aside with video equipment connecting the detention facility with a Judge and his/her courtroom. These systems can be utilized for increased courtroom security and court efficiency. These rooms/systems are seldom used. Response No. 6 The video arraignment equipment is not in use. No funds have been made available to provide the staff necessary to operate the system. FINDINGS MUNICIPAL/SUPERIOR COURT HOLDING CELLS Finding No. 2 The Court's holding cells are either out-dated, badly situated and accessible to public areas (Bray, Mt. Diablo), inadequate for the population they are supposed to contain (Mt. Diablo), or poorly maintained (Bray, Mt. Diablo). Response No. 2 We agree the Mt. Diablo Municipal Court holding cell is located adjacent to a hallway used by Court employees, although this hallway is not accessible to public areas. The holding cells in the Bray Court are not accessible to public areas. 3 We agree that Mt. Diablo Municipal Court does not have a holding cell for female inmates at 1950 Parkside Drive. We disagree that holding facilities at Mt. Diablo and A.F. Bray are poorly maintained. Both facilities meet and exceed standards established by the Board of Corrections. Finding No. 3 There is little protection for the Judges, or for the public, in the Courts. There is no consistent use of metal detectors at the entrances to the Courthouses. In some Courthouses, prisoners are escorted through a public area in order to get to the Courtroom (Bray,.Mt. Diablo). Response No. 3. We disagree that little protection exists for Judges or for the public in the Courts. Each Court is staffed with a bail ffand supplemented by floor deputies and transportation deputies. The staffing levels are approved by Judges annually. We agree that metal detectors are not located at the entrances to the Courthouses. We agree that in some Courthouses, prisoners are escorted through a public area in order to get to the courtroom (Mt. Diablo and east side of Bray Court House). Finding No. 4 In the Mt. Diablo Judicial District, because of a lack of holding cell space, female prisoners are often shackled to a chair in an open area used by Court clerks until called to Court. Response No. 4 We agree that due to the lack of a second holding cell at Mt. Diablo Court,female inmates have been handcuffed in a jury chair on occasion. Presently,female inmates are being held in the holding cell at 2970 Willow Pass Road until the cases are called. 4 Finding No. 5 Fire inspections are required yearly in Court facilities. They were not found to be current in: Bay Judicial-Richmond, last dated 11/20/91, and Walnut Creek, last dated 09/23/91. Bray, Delta Judicial and Mt. Diablo do not have any proof of their last fire inspection. Response No. 5 We agree that yearly inspections are required at local holding facilities. The Sheriffs Office requested the California State Fire Marshall to inspect all five facilities on December 29,1994. Bray Building and Bay Court were inspected on April 19, 1995. The California State Fire Marshall has indicated the remaining facilities will be inspected as soon as possible. Finding No. 6 In the old Courthouse in Martinez, the elevators have not been inspected since September 30,1993. The permits expired September 30,1994. Response No. 6 The elevators in the Court House at 725 Court Street were inspected on September 28, 1994. The operational permit expires on September 28,1995. FINDINGS: SHERIFF'S OFFICE/POLICE DEPARTMENTS. Finding No.l. There are only six police departments (Antioch, B.A.R.T., Concord, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, and the Sheriffs Office at West County that are located in facilities less than ten years old. These agencies should be fully capable of meeting current specifications and passing the requirements of Fire, Board of Corrections, and Health Department inspecting. Other agencies have infractions ranging from minor to those requiring extensive building renovations to meet current codes and specifications. 5 Response No. 1. In addition to the Bay Station located at the West County Justice Center, the Office of the Sheriff maintains three other stations. Central Station which is located at the Field Operations Building, 1980 Muir Road, Martinez; Valley Station located in the Alamo Plaza, Alamo; and the Delta Station located at O'Hara and Acme, Oakley. The Bay Station and Field Operations Building meet all current codes. The Valley Station is going to be relocated within the Alamo Plaza in the near future and the tenant improvements planned will meet current code requirements. The Delta Station is a County owned facility which is one of the oldest still in use by the Sheriffs Office. Due to the age of the building a number of more current codes have not been met. General Services will be asked to survey the site for code compliance. Finding No. 2. Many patrol vehicles are kept in service longer than they should be, and are seldom replaced in a timely manner. Many jurisdictions do not have adequate quantities of vehicles to allow shift overlaps. Often, shifts share a vehicle, and if an Officer responds to a call toward the end of their shift, the next officer has to wait until the first Officer and their vehicle return to the station. Examples of this were found at San Pablo, Kensington and the Sheriff s Office (West County). Response No. 2. A three year plan has been initiated by the Office of the Sheriff to replace all of the older vehicles in the Patrol Division and to increase the number of vehicles available. During the worst of the current fiscal crisis, capital replacement funds had to be sacrificed to save positions. Finding No. 3 . Each Department has barely enough staffing to fill their shifts and cover their patrol areas. If there is a shift vacancy, the other Officers in the department must fill those shifts. The resulting under-staffed shift has tired, over-stressed Officers working alone, without backup. Examples of this situation were found in San Pablo, Kensington, Sheriffs Office (West County), Moraga, Brentwood, and Clayton. San Pablo Police Department averaged 1961 incidents per officer per year in 1994. 6 Response No. 3. The passage of proposition 172; the acquisition of 18 positions through the Federal Grant Program; and a commitment by the Board of Supervisors to restore 24 positions over a three year period of time will help alleviate some of the problems identified in Finding 3. Eighteen of the grant positions should be fully operational by January 1996 However, these steps do not fully restore the one hundred plus positions lost during FY 93/94. The restoration of all lost positions and the continued planned growth to meet projected population increases in the unincorporated areas of the County is a continuous process within the Off ce. Finding No. 4. Some Officers are required to purchase their own computers, software, equipment (such as firearms, badges, uniforms),and cameras. Officers in Kensington are even required to purchase their own pens and notebooks to write shift reports. Response No. 4. All Sher ffersonnel are provided those basic pieces of equipment necessary to do their respective jobs. In addition uniformed personnel receive a uniform allowance to maintain, replace, and upgrade their uniforms. Finding No. 5. Perpetrators may be cited and released because a Department may elect not to use departmental funds to cover the County's booking fees at the Martinez Detention Center, and/or spend the Officer's time driving the perpetrator to and returning from the Martinez facility. Response No. 5. The booking fees are not an issue for the Sheriffs Office. Transportation to the AAF and returning to the beat are. Reserve Deputy Sheriffs are being scheduled during weekends to transport arrested subjects to the AAF. The issuance of a citation in lieu of booking has always been considered as an alternative for minor.offenses as long as the needs ofpublic safety are considered and satisfied. Finding No. 6. Unless the dollar value of an arrest warrant justifies the costs of arrest and booking, the criminal remains on the streets. This is contrary to Penal Code Section 848, which states, "An Officer making an arrest, in obedience to a warrant, must proceed with the person arrested as commanded by the warrant, or as provided by law. " Response No. 6 The Office of the Sheriff does not use a formula which equates the value of the warrant and the cost of arrest and booking. In the case of minor warrants that do not require an appearance other options may be considered. Citing the individual to appear; advising the individual of the existence of a warrant; or accepting the fine in the form of money orders or cashier's checks are some of the options considered. This has been a practice among law enforcement for years. These practices have been driven by the overcrowded system and the shortage of personnel articulated in the earlier findings. Finding No 7. There is an inconsistency in forms for booking inmates among the Sheriff s Booking Facility and many City Police Departments. This results in a duplication of forms, and a waste of Officers' time and Cities' money. Response No. 7. The Office of the Sheriff to include its contract cities use the same forms for booking Findings MARINE PATROL 1. There are more than 35,000 pleasure vessels registered by Contra Costa County Residents. 2. Marine Patrol coverage in Contra Costa County is part time and extremely limited in its scope of operation relative to the 1200 mile coastline of the County. 8 r ` 3. There is no on-going program of safety inspections, waterway law enforcement, or registration of marine craft. Boats are being launched and used with multiple County and State violations. 4. The State of California has offered funds ($55, 000) towards the purchase of a new vessel for the Marine Patrol. Contra Costa County must come up with approximately $10,000 to complete the purchase and is attempting to find the funds to do so. There are no funds budgeted for the staffing, maintenance or operation of said vessel. Response to No. 1-4 It is important to note that the Marine Patrol coverage in Contra Costa County is NOT part time as indicated in the above findings. There are four fully-trained Marine Patrol Deputies. There are six vessels assigned to the unit. During the winter months, two deputies are assigned to the Delta and are supported by reserve deputies. During the summer months there are three deputies assigned and supported by reserve deputies. The deputies regularly patrol those portions of our delta waterways which are most heavily used. Given the number of personnel assigned vessel inspections and enforcement activity is bngoing, as evidenced by the 196 citations issued during the 93/94 season. The Bid process has been completed for the new vessel andfunding is in place for its acquisition, use, and maintenance. There is widespread agreement among county sheriffs, the Coast Guard,Fish and Game, and Parks and Recreation officials that funds must be generated to cover the cost of enforcing our boating laws and that these funds must be reserved for purposes of boating safety only. To that end, the Office of the Sheriff is carrying forward legislation that will do just that: ACA 12 and AB 122. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 12 would create a constitutionally protected trust fund, similar to the state highway trust fund,for all boating fuel tax and registration fees. By doing this we would prevent these monies from being used to balance the state budget or for any purposes not directly related to boating and waterway programs. As an amendment to the state constitution, it needs a two-thirds vote to get on the ballot. 9 Assembly Bill 122 designates how the money in the trust fund is to be appropriated and dedicates 20 percent of the fund for county marine patrol and boating law enforcement programs. The ultimate goal of the Sheriffs Office is to restore Marine Patrol to 1989 levels, 1 -Sgt.; and 8-Deputies. CONCLUSIONS MUNICIPAL/SUPERIOR COURT HOLDING CELLS Conclusion No. 1 In the majority of Courts and police agencies, the buildings and facilities are old and need updating, renovation or repair. Response No. 1 We agree. Conclusion No. 2 Security precautions at the Courthouses, if present at all, are minimal. Response No. 2 We agree the absence of metal detectors at Courthouses severely reduces the level of security at the facilities. The level of staffing at each facility is in compliance with the staffing agreement negotiated annually with the presiding Judge at each facility. CONCLUSIONS: SHERIFF/POLICE DEPARTMENTS: Conclusion No. 1. The majority of these agencies have been operating on bare minimum budgets for far too long. 10 Response No. 1 As the elected Sheriff of Contra Costa County, I cannot but agree with the conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: MARINE PATROL Conclusion No. 1. Coverage of waterways is inadequate for public safety. Response No. 1. Once again, I cannot but agree. RECOMMENDATIONS: DETENTION FACILITIES Recommendation No. 1 The West County Detention booking facility be opened immediately and used, on a trial basis, during heavy intake periods to eliminate the bottleneck at the Martinez Detention Facility booking center and to decrease the county-wide impact on local jurisdictions. Response to Recommendation No. 1 We agree that the West County Detention Facility Booking Unit should be opened on a trial basis if proper funding is provided. During any trial period the unit will be staffed by personnel on overtime. Recommendation No. 2 Within sixty (60) days, the Board of Supervisors appoint a Board to review and standardize booking procedures and documentation for the County and Cities. All Police Departments should adopt standardized procedures and booking forms consistent with the Sheriff s Department. 11 Response to Recommendation No. 2 We disagree with the appointment of a Board as the ,Sher ff and local police agencies have the ability to accomplish such a task. Recommendation No. 3 Within sixty (60) days, the Board of Supervisors appoint an independent review board to study the Detention Facilities, and determine how the existing facilities can best be utilized to serve the County's needs. Response to Recommendation No. 3 We disagree with the appointment of a review board as the Sheriff has the expertise and personnel to make this determination. Recommendation No. 4 Additional funding be allocated to maintain and operate the County 's existing facilities in a safe and well-maintained manner for the health, safety and welfare of the personnel and inmates. Response to Recommendation No. 4 We agree with this recommendation. _ RECOMMENDATIONS: MUNICIPAL/SUPERIOR COURT HOLDING CELLS Recommendation No. 1 Within one hundred twenty (120) days, metal detectors be installed and used at all public entrances to all Court buildings. Response No. 1 We agree. 12 Recommendation.No. 2 Within thirty (30) days, bring fire inspections up to date in all Court facilities. Response No. 2 California State Fire Marshall has been notified to complete annual inspections. Recommendation No. 3 Within thirty (30) days, have the elevators in the old Courthouse inspected and recertified. Response No. 3 Permits are certified until September 28, 1995. Recommendation No. 4 Within sixty (60) days of formation, the independent review board should study all County holding facilities, prisoner transportation procedures and court rooms used for criminal trials in order.to,address public safety concerns over inmate contact with the public. Response No. 4 We disagree in that this Department has the personnel and expertise to conduct public safety needs assessment. Recommendation No. 5 A. Within thirty (30) days, the County owned video arraignment system be put into regular use to reduce movement of high risk prisoners. Response No. 5 We agree. 13 RECOMMENDATIONS: SHERIFF'S OFFICE/POLICE DEPARTMENTS Recommendation No. 1 Within 30 days, fire inspections shall be brought up to date and kept current. Response No. 1 I support and will implement the recommendation. Recommendation No. 2. Each responsible jurisdiction shall seek immediate funding to provide adequate personnel, safety equipment, vehicles, computers and other equipment essential to performing their duties through reallocation of internal budgets or additional tax revenues. Response No. 2 Steps have been implemented as articulated in the preceding discussion regarding the findings of the Grand Jury. In addition, a program to replace 150 mobile and portable radios will be initiated shortly. RECOMMENDATIONS: MARINE PATROL Recommendations No. 1 Within (60) days, the Board of Supervisors will appoint a committee to review an entire Marine Patrol program and its funding in order to increase law enforcement and public safety on the waterways Response No. 1 The Sheriffs Office supports this recommendation and will make staff available to facilitate this endeavor. 14 Recommendation No. 2. The Sheriffs Department immediately grant Harbor Masters the power to cite offenders for safety and registration violations. Response No. 2 The Sheriffs Oce cannot support this recommendation. The common theme throughout the Grand.Juries findings, conclusions, and recommendations is adequate personnel to do the job at hand. Even a simple citation for a registration or safety violation could place a non sworn harbor master in harms way. 'This is our responsibility. With sufficient funding and personnel we can meet this responsibility. 15 r r-- 731CHNIEIVT A Probation Department c�°� A= g a Contra Gerald S. Buck "i"`'`"_s`t"'`'` County Trobation Officer Administrative Offices 50 Douglas Drive,Suite 201 ostaI I `° JUL 3 Martinez,California 94553-8500 County i 1995 (510)313-4180 F (510)313-4191 FAX •J �.� � � (��i F1�3�'• �g Sst:S`v 3�at r.:�i1i f To: � ..:..:, .-�,.. ,s Date Scott Tandy, Chief 6/29/95 Asst. County Administrator �o:.. ' - .•J�` Sra cook'{' From: Gerald S . Buck, Subject: Grand Jury Report #9507 Count Probation Officer June 9, 1995 The following comments are provided for your interest and use. Each is referenced to a page and section of the Grand Jury report. Pg. 1 . The Probation Department was initially asked to reduce County net cost by approximately 1801 and to absorb added salary and benefit costs . In the CAO' s proposed budget, our County net cost would have been reduced by $1 . 8 million, or -120 . In the final adopted budget our reduction was $650, 000 or -40-. . All but $350, 000 was acquired from increased revenues, increased fees and decreased occupancy costs . Six vacant positions were cancelled. Pg. 5-2 . The two juvenile facilities, Juvenile Hall and Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility, are old (45 and 35 years respectively) and receive very high usage 24 hours/day, seven days a week. This, along with fiscal shortages for the past 17 years, has caused the facilities to become "dilapidated" and unsightly. This, however, should not be construed to be synonymous with unsafe or unhealthy for residents . The report implies that funding vocational education programs took funding from building maintenance and repair. This is not accurate as the education program is funded by the Office of Education and those funds are not usable for building repair and maintenance. The report states some juveniles are housed out of county due to overcrowding. This is not correct. Youth are placed out of county only when the individual child' s needs can best be met in a particular program. There has been no predisposition housing outside the county. While the Juvenile Hall has been chronically overcrowded, the Ranch is never over capacity as new residents are not admitted until there is room. Scott Tandy - 2 - 6/29/95 Pg. 6-3 . The report states juveniles in facilities are younger and more violent . We do not believe youth offenders are younger than in the past. In 1988, 1201 of youth arrested were 12 and younger and five years later, in 1993, less than 11% were 12 and younger. Violent crime by all juveniles through age 17 has risen. In the period 1988 to 1993 violent crime arrests rose from 800 to 1135 (+42%) with all of the increase being in the 15 to 17 age group. Pg. 6-4 & 5 . These sections cite specific repair and equipment needs at the Ranch. All of the items noted-.have been referred to General Services and are in the��process of getting cost estimates or have been repaired: The report states equipment does not meet Health' Department requirements . While Health inspectors have recommended replacement of certain equipment, they have given the facility 'a "passing" mark on its annual inspection. Pg. 6-6 . The Ranch facility cannot separate any part of its population, including younger boys . To do so would require reconstruction of the housing building and reprogramming the entire facility. We are not aware of any significant problems related to younger boys at the Ranch. Age is often not as. critical to compatibility as is physical and emotional maturity. Pg. 677 . In response to not having a program equivalent to the Ranch for girls, intercounty agreements were made with Santa Clara and Sonoma County Probation Departments which operate equivalent programs for girls . Pg. 6-8 . Within 72 hours of admission, 'a comprehensive health examination is given which includes vision and hearing testing. Where correction is needed, Public Health follows up through private health care providers or the County Hospital . Pg. 6-9 . This year's fire safety inspection was conducted by the State Fire Marshal on June 2, 1995 . We have been verbally notified there are no fire safety issues . We've requested the Fire Marshal _ to provide. us with a written affirmation. Pg. 6-10 . There is only one DPO assigned to do re-entry into the community work for all boys leaving the Ranch. There should be at least two DPOs to handle the nearly 400 boys returning home. Pg. 6-11 . Reference here is presumably to Juvenile Probation Supervision. Deputy Probation Officers are responsible for 60 to 80 active cases at a time. It is correct Scott Tandy - 3 - June 29, 1995 that on average, little time per case is available. Officers must classify their caseloads and manage their time to allow those cases having the greatest need to get more of their time. Since 1992, when several positions were lost, we have been forced to place all juveniles on probation on a "service on demand" status after 90 days. Cases in this status will not be seen provided the juvenile is not rearrested. Pg. 8 . "Conclusions" Probation Juvenile Facilities: The Grand Jury concludes that our facilities are inadequate to safely hold the populations we have. We agree that more bed space is needed for detention and treatment and that older buildings should be replaced. We do not concede that current use is unsafe. The Grand Jury concludes that probation officer caseloads are too high.. We agree. Pg. 9 . Recommendations . Criminal Justice System: We agree that every effort should be made to provide the total system with sufficient resources . We feel the Board did give priority toward minimization of budget cuts in Law and Justice. Detention Facilities : #4 . We agree that detention facilities are old and in need of maintenance and repair and that funds should be provided to keep them safe and able to provide for the health and welfare of residents. Each year the Juvenile Hall and the Ranch are inspected by an independent outside authority, by the Juvenile Justice Commission, by the Health Department and by fire inspectors . This year, as in past years, no significant unfixed deficiencies exist which would constitute a definition of the facilities being unfit or unable to provide a safe, healthy and protective living environment . The Presiding Juvenile Court Judge has certified that both facilities are suitable for the housing of juveniles in detention. Pg. 10-1, 2 & 3 . The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors continue to seek funds to modernize or replace County juvenile detention facilities . I agree. Scott Tandy - 4 - 6/29/95 The Board has approved the Continuum of Care plan in the Juvenile Justice System. The Grand Jury recommends it be implemented in 60 days . Since the plan has a $46 million price estimate .and no yet. identified source of funding, this recommendation does not appear doable. As noted earlier, the Fire Marshal has inspected the Ranch (June 2, 1995) and has verbally reported no significant deficiencies . Pg. 11-4 . This item calls for the Board of Supervisors to review and possibly restructure and reorganize the Probation Department. The role Probation will play in the Justice System and its operation of facilities must be determined by several parties working together and not just the Board of Supervisors. These matters need to engage the Superior Court, the new County Probation Officer, the Juvenile Justice Commission, and the JSPAC advisory group. Pg. 11-5 . The Grand Jury calls for separate quarters for younger boys at the Ranch. We do not feel this is practical nor is it needed. However, care should be taken by the Probation Department and the Juvenile Court to assure that only appropriate cases be considered for and committed to the Ranch. Boys who might be too young or too immature should be excluded from consideration and alternative programs should be sought and considered. Pg. 11-6 . We agree there is a need for improved re-entry services . Several grant proposals (East Bay Comprehensive Communities, Healthy Start, Safe Futures, Boot Camp planning, and CCC Juvenile Conservation Corps) address the issue of post incarceration care related to school attendance and employment . Planning for delivery of re-entry services and the development of service delivery systems relate to Recommendation #4 above. GSB:ds CC: Judge Minney Presiding Judge, Superior Court jl2/GJ9507.wp t ATTACHMENT E GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1220 Morello Avenue,Suite 200 Martinez,California 945534711 Extension 3-7100 FAX 3-7108 DATE: July 10, 1995 TO: ScottTandy, Chief Assi tant Coun dministrator FROM: Barton J. Gilbert, Director of en ral"Servi-0— SUBJECT: Response to Grand Jury Report#9507 --Your Memo of June 9, 1995 In response to Grand Jury Report #9507, the General Services Department does have maintenance responsibilities for the County-owned and operated facilities that are included in the Report. While I agree with the Grand Jury that most of the facilities are old and in need of additional maintenance, they all meet the minimum standards required by State and local laws. The following are in response to specific recommendations. MUNICIPAL/SUPERIOR COURT/POLICE HOLDING CELLS: 2. Within 30 days, bring fire inspections up to date in all Court facilities. According to our Department staff, all court facilities within the County have been inspected by the State Fire Marshal and/or the appropriate fire district. Evidence of these inspections could be obtained from these agencies; the General Services Department is given official notification of inspection only when such inspection reveals specific deficiencies requiring correction. 3. Within 30 days, have the elevators in the Old Courthouse inspected and recertified. Contrary to the Grand Jury's conclusion.regarding the elevator inspections, both elevators in the County Courthouse have been and continue to be certified by the State of California. Attached are copies of certificates to operate both elevators. If you require anything further, please let me know. RCO,NTRAA COSTA COUNgY 7 RECEIVED BJG:dcg Attachments JUL I 11995 cc: C. L. Van Marter �.,.1 Tony Enea iii"TILE Of tl+ �a George Roemerj tA