HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02141984 - X.10 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: M. G. WINGETT, County Administrator Contra
Costa
DATE: February 13, 1984 County
SUBJECT: REPORT ON ALLOCATION OF PROPOSITION 2 CAPITAL JAIL EXPENDITURE
FUNDS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Support and request the Board of Corrections to approve the proportionate distribution
method for the allocation of Proposition 2 Capital Jail Expenditure Funds as developed
by counties not currently being recommended for funding by the Evaluation Committee of
the Board of Corrections.
2. Request that the Board of Corrections, utilizing the findings of the Proposition 2
evaluation process and the definition of needs contained in county applications, work
with the Legislature and Governor in conjunction with CSAC and affected counties to
convene an immediate summit conference to discuss the current crisis in county jails
and to explore alternate ways of funding such needs, including legislative support for
the allocation of Proposition 16 funds, if passed, consistent with the rankings and
recommendations of the Evaluation Committee of the Board of Corrections.
BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION:
George Roemer, Executive Director, Criminal Justice Agency, reviewed the evaluation guide-
lines and process of the Board of Corrections and summarized the findings and recommendatior:,
that the Evaluation Committee is presenting to the Board of Corrections for action at its
2/15/84 meeting. Mr. Roemer stated that the Evaluation Committee recommends funding for
only seven counties out of 19 submitting applications, which would mean that Contra Costa
County would not be funded.
Mr. Roemer further related that the 12 counties below the funding line have developed an
alternate funding allocation which is based upon the rankings and scoring of the Evaluation
Committee. Under this allocation formula, each of the 19 counties would receive a propor-
tionate amount of its request. Most of these counties already have the support of their
Boards of Supervisors and legislative delegation.
Supervisor Powers questioned whether this County should support the alternate funding alloca-
tion since the guidelines and process followed by the Evaluation Committee were developed in
participation with CSAC and counties. In addition, he believed that incomplete projects
might result. Supervisor McPeak shared those concerns and also felt that the Evaluation
Committee work, which included participation by CSAC, should be given recognition. Mr. Roemez
replied that the alternate allocation being proposed is, in fact, based upon the work of
the Evaluation Committee in that the number of points earned by each applicant was utilized
in distributing the funds. He further stated that:
1. The evaluation guidelines did not directly relate project funding levels to the number
of points.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: p
_X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINIS RECOMMEN A 10 OF BOARD COMMITTEE
�-APPROVE OTHER ,
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: CJA (.for distribution) ATTESTED
Correctional Facility Planning J.R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK
Task Force AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
Correctional and Detention Services 2 3`t
Advisory Commission
f _ /n/
REPORT ON ALLOCATION OF PROPOSITION 2 2
CAPITAL JAIL EXPENDITURE FUNDS UNDER
CONSIDERATION BY STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS
2. Adoption of the proposed allocation would generate maximum support for the June bond
issue of $250 million for jail construction in that all 19 counties involved would have
a stake in the outcome.
3. The issue of funding projects that can be completed is a good one. Many counties below
the funding line have said that their projects, as proposed, could be completed or that
another project could be developed that would solve overcrowding and/or dilapidation
problems.
4. Contra Costa County has designed a facility that can be phased in over time, and we
would need to determine how the amount proposed for Contra Costa can be best used.
5. If the Evaluation Committee findings are adopted by the Board of Corrections, then this
County will not have the chance to develop and implement such a phased-in plan.
The above recommendations were adopted upon motion of Supervisor Powers, with a second by
Supervisor McPeak. Mr. Roemer was directed to convey these recommendations to the Board
of Corrections at its 2/15/84 meeting.
4.35