Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11041986 - 2.3 003 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR (� } County Administrator CCosta DATE: October 28, 1986. CoUrty SUBJECT: COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BOND ACT OF 1986 (PROPOSITION 52) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) Q BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Accept Report from County Administrator on implementation guidelines for Proposition 52 which allocated $2.3 million to Contra Costa County for adult jail construction and $475,058 for capital expenditures for juvenile facilities. 2. Request the Correctional Facility Planning Task Force, as modified, to develop an application for Proposition 52 funds for adult and juvenile facilities in Contra Costa County. 3. Approve appointment, as requested by State Board of Corrections, of Carol Kizziah to the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee .on Alternatives to Incarceration established in the legislation to develop program standards in the area of alternatives to incarceration. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS/BACKGROUND: Implementing Guidelines for Proposition 52. In June 1986, California voters passed Proposition 52 which allocates $475 million Statewide for local adult detention facilities and $20 million for juvenile facilities. Senate Bill 2543, the trailer bill for Proposition 52, was signed by the Governor on October 1, 1986. The majority of issues in SB 2543 involve requirements associated with submitting applications and negotiating contracts. Important requirements and deadlines for the adult application are summarized here: 1. Applications must be submitted by September 1987. Counties must prepare '(or update) a needs assessment to submit with application. 2. Construction or renovation work must begin within three years of passage of SB 2543. 3. A master plan for location of county detention facilities, at least ten years into the future, must be prepared and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 4. County must comply with the requirements regarding facilities for mentally ill inmates and those arrested for public inebriation, and the use of alternatives to incarceration. Compliance will be determined by comparing county applications to standards developed by three ad hoc advisory committees and adopted by the Board of Corrections through regulations. It is expected that the regulations will not be completed and approved until mid-April 1987. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: _X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDA 1 N_OW BOARD COMMI TEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON November 4, 1986 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X Also ADDED Stuart McCullough to the Correction Facility Planning Task Force. , VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X 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. c CC: CAO-Justice System Programs ATTESTED / �7 0 6 Sheriff-Coroner -Phil WIThelot, Uerk ol the Buird of County Probation Officer $Wjviwsad('AY4AdmmLgrdv Health Services - Mental Health County Administrator M3e2/7-e3 BY DEPUTY County Correctional Facility Capital Expenditure Bond Act of 1986 (Proposition 52) Page 2 - 10/28/.86 5. A final notice of determination on the environmental impact report must be filed with the Board of Corrections. 6. The' county must submit a preliminary staffing plan and an estimated operating cost for the proposed facility. 7. The Board of Corrections will.establish construction cost controls. The State's contribution will be up to seventy-five percent of the total project costs -or up to seventy-five percent of the applicable construction cost norms, whichever is lower. 8. The County must provide a twenty-five percent match. (Total project cost would be $2,922,720. ) Important requirements for the expenditure of juvenile funds are: 1. Funds are to be used for construction, reconstruction, remodeling and replacement of county juvenile facilities. A county match fund of twenty-five percent is required. (Total project cost would be $593,823. ) 2. The Department of the Youth Authority will allocate and administer the bond monies intended for juvenile facilities. Funds are to be distributed on a per capita basis to those counties that demonstrate a need to (1) relieve juvenile facilities overcrowding; (2) remedy fire, life, and safety deficiencies; and (3) perform deferred maintenance. Correctional Facility Planning Task Force The Correctional Facility Planning Task Force was formed by the Board of Supervisors on December 14, 1982 to develop the Proposition 2 application for county jail capital expenditure funds. The Task Force reviewed sites and the needs assessment in developing the proposal for the West County Justice Center.. The Task Force has been modified to include citizen representatives in the juvenile justice area so that the Task Force can develop both adult and juvenile Proposition 52 applications. Recommended Task Force membership is as follows: Gerald Buck, . County Probation Officer; Earnest Clements, Chief, Richmond Police Department (Police Chiefs' Association representative); Bruce Ghiselli, CCC Mayors' Conference; Cecil Heden, Chair, Justice System Subvention Program Advisory Group (AB 90); Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel's Office; John C. Minney, Presiding Judge, Walnut Creek/Danville Municipal Court; Patrick Murphy, Public Defender; Richard L. Patsey, Judge, Superior Court; Richard Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner; William Richardson, Chair, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commissions; George Roemer, Director, Justice System Programs; Robert Rygh, General Services Department; Clemitt Swagerty, • Chair, Correctional and Detention Services Advisory Commission; Gary Yancey, District Attorney; Charles Zahn, Community Development. The Task Force will report back to the Board of Supervisors in March 1987. Appointment to Board of Corrections Ad Hoc Advisory_ Committee on Alternatives to Incarceration The Board of Corrections asked Carol Kizziah, Criminal Justice Agency of Contra Costa County, to serve on the Ad Hoc Alternatives Committee established in the legislation to develop Program standards for local compliance. These standards will be part of the proposed regulations to be ready by April 1987'.