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