Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02122008 - D.4 DA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on February 12, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Uilkema, Piepho, Glover and Bonilla NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONSIDERED potential sites within Contra Costa County to host a state re-entry facility. Please see attached addendum I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: February 12, 2008 John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator &,:�61,� () �41 A, - By: Deputy C1erk..Lena O'Neal ADDENDUM TO DA FEBRUARY 12, 2008 On this day the Board of Supervisors considered potential sites within Contra Costa County to host a state re-entry facility. County Administrator John Cullen recalled that on February 5, 2008, he reported on AB 900 (Solorio/Aghazarian), the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007, and following that discussion, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to report back in one week on possible sites for a community re-entry facility. He noted the Board also directed the County Administrator's office to execute a contract with a consultant to complete the application for a state grant for local jail construction, to include information on the County' willingness to site a re-entry facility. He said that work had begun, and information would be provided to the Board on March 11, 2008. He presented a Powerpoint presentation(see attached) to the Board with potential County-owned sites for a community re-entry facility and requested the Board for direction on choosing one or more of these sites, and to providing any additional information required by the Board. Supervisor Piepho questioned what the needs were for local services or local infrastructure to house a new facility. She opined that part of the challenge in selecting a property would be concerns the community would raise if they did not have opportunity for comments. About traffic issues at Marsh Creek Road, she questioned if the localized services would be needs- based or if the re-entry facility was "stand alone." Mr. Cullen responded that all the sites identified by staff are accessible to local infrastructure but gaining that access would require work and expense on the state's part, and would require negotiation with the state. Sheriff Rupf said he was not aware of the impact of traffic at the Marsh Creek Detention Facility property, but the community re-entry facility would"stand alone." He reasoned it would be advisable to have the facility close to public transportation and public services to better serve the objectives of the re-entry concept. Mr. Cullen noted that cooperating with the state to site a community re-entry facility would facilitate the County's application for state grant funds for local jail construction. He conceded the state might not accept remote sites that had associated infrastructure costs. Supervisor Uilkema requested staff to study a Superfund property west of the Carquinez Bridge in her District. She asked if the state would clean up the site before a facility was placed. Mr. Cullen responded he had no information on this. He noted the state is seeking properties that are more developable versus those that require new infrastructure or cleanup cost. He emphasized if the County is trying to get value of that asset to contribute towards a match, a site that required cleanup would be a stumbling block. Supervisor Bonilla reiterated the County is at a preliminary stage and said, "every time we talk about where to put a jailor prison, there is an immediate reaction from the community." She asked how many inmates are at the Marsh Creek Detention Facility and if there is any public transportation or program carried out at that facility? 1 Sheriff Rupf responded that the Marsh Creek Detention Facility currently houses 150 inmates, and explained there is no public transportation to the Facility. He went on to say the inmates are transported back and forth by his staff. He reported that, due to the small population, fewer programs are offered at the Facility than at the larger facilities. Supervisor Gioia remarked that much work needs to occur before the Board decides to build new prison beds in this County. He said his preference would be to take the extra money the County would spend to operate those beds and allocate it instead towards alternatives to imprisonment. He requested County Administrator's office to work on exploring alternatives, respecting that all choices are kept open. He noted that Sonoma County is discussing alternatives to imprisonment and it would be important to benefit from their discussions. He reiterated that any application presented to the state to consider potential sites for a community re-entry facility would not be a commitment to build new prison beds in this County. Supervisor Piepho asked if a site is selected and community input had not been solicited, would the state respond to the community? She also asked what the County's role would be in the community outreach process related to siting a state facility. Sheriff Rupf responded that both the state and County would go through a community outreach process for any such development. Supervisor Piepho said she would like to support a re-entry facility but expressed concerns about the reaction from the community. She asked if choices could be defined with respect to the public access constraints in Marsh Creek. Mr. Cullen advised at this point the County should apply the broad criteria of remoteness, size, and county-ownership,without regard to the concerns and issues for infrastructure and transportation. Supervisor Piepho asked Sheriff Rupf whether he had any preferences on the locations. Sheriff Rupf said the immediate need is to identify one site to stay at the table. He said the state is talking about state prisoners that will be released to this community and the community re-entry facilities are intended to decompress the individuals to better prepare them for re-integration to the community. He advised the Board that until the County knows what the state's rules are, it is advisable consider a site and stay at the table. In reference to Supervisor Gioia's comment regarding alternatives to imprisonment, the Sheriff said it would be timely for his department to work with the County Administrator to get a report to the Board on the Sheriff's custody alternative program. Supervisor Uilkema said that from a social point of view the price is too high for the County to plan for long term maximum-security facilities. She requested the County Administrator to explore the Superfund issue on order to "kill two birds with one stone" (in reference to meeting the state's need to site a re-entry facility and getting the Selby Slag parcel cleaned up). In conclusion, she said"we should fish or cut bait" on the subject. Supervisor Gioia conceded there is nothing that would prevent the County, if a decision were made not to go forward with the jail construction, to make a site available to the state for a community re-entry facility. He voiced his concern that re-entry facilities—when done right— are needed in the community and the County, but the question would be whether the state-run facility would be the right one. He said the County would be better off if we studied how to do re-entry right, and not have a connection to services. He said there needs to be a plan that makes sense and that his way of thinking is that we can"feed two birds with one worm." 2 Supervisor Piepho made a motion to advance to the state for consideration the Marsh Creek Detention Facility site, the two Waterfront Road properties in Martinez, and the Cummings Skyway parcel in Rodeo. She noted the Cummings Skyway and the Waterfront properties are the best with respect to transportation issues. Supervisor Uilkema requested the Board to stay with the entire list provided to the Board, and suggested exploring the cleanup of Superfund sites. Supervisor Glover asked if this was acceptable to the maker of the motion. Supervisor Piepho said the Superfund sites would increase costs to the state and reasoned this could eliminate the County from state consideration. Mr. Cullen said he would report back to the Board on the Superfund site the next time he reports on this issue. Supervisor Uilkema asked to amend the motion in order to include the full list as presented. Supervisor Piepho responded she did not support the Deer Valley Road/Sand Creek Basin site in Brentwood. Supervisor Uilkema expressed her concern that most of the sites that were identified were within her district and that they all were proximate to industrial refineries. Chair Glover seconded the Supervisor Piepho's original motion. Supervisor Bonilla suggested to keep the list as broad as possible to avoid becoming too narrow and cautioned that the County was only making an offer to the state subject to negotiation, not a commitment. Supervisor Gioia clarified the motion,which was to include the Marsh Creek site in Clayton (District III); the Waterfront sites in Martinez (District II); Cummings Skyway site(District II); and Deer Valley in Brentwood(District V). He asked Mr. Cullen what would happen with these sites that are submitted to the state. Mr. Cullen responded there would be a negotiation process with the state over whether the sites are acceptable or not. Supervisor Gioia suggested the County should be educated about the purpose of re-entry facilities and said he would support all the facilities being put forward to the state. He cautioned that approval is not being given on any one of the sites today. By unanimous vote, with all Supervisors present, the Board amended the motion to read: ■ Advance for state consideration all five parcels identified by staff as potential sites to host a state re-entry facility; ■ Directed County Administrator to return to the Board with information on Superfund sites to be kept at staff level, versus inclusion with the sites being advanced to the state for possible re-entry facility sites. 3 � � � © §� � ��\ « � � /� : � \\ , � : � . : <� � \ ��/ 17, �A cn CD 0 3 (7\ .) CD 0 0 CD y (D O (D C: Qn � tD CD n 0 0. C: v 03 m CD c c� o � � CD CD �- c �. rn 0- 4 P4j e-i- � U) U) _0 c CC n m � 0 � CD0 � M � CDC Oto 0oSo o3 � oCD � o � CD CD 0 CD CD CD (D n CD CD =3=300 - 0CD CD � CD CD(o 00 S CD CD CD < CD C7 _ � M M3 0 0o n CD � i.. 0- c� �- o �' � ocD -1 <. M 0 �F Cy- CD (D (D0 CCDM� Q cD a- CD CD � = - CD '�- o cn = ma) cCD :4; � 3 .<< �< 0 CCD : Qcn- O �UCD ° U) O CD-0 CDS o .CCC CD � v CD =r o CD Co m n ch s4 _ k px • u s m U O Alp � i O CD U) N h00 ' O (D O AOM u) C7 R i O ` N rN-F M ✓ 00 CD (D �. n e a cn Cn CD Cm n �. o CDD CDCD Q -1 � ,--�- sCD cn CD d cr c CD t r - k $ S w .. 8 R �- . o rad: .: �.a'�i➢ � �'"" -• wl Oman. POP5 a � jug, q P 5VyY dii Eh• 'F x •.� His ; a r 3 • • • r • • a A y "i d f q" a' 8 � �tF t ft Y �s t lib N N CD 7'I t� Q ' CA n „ a M�x ray, r,` t W_� O (p 90 t vs 40 t W P W S { 4 M41 i CD 0 <� F n f } CD cy ,,tq Tot t 4, m� a sCD a C y O ,4 N �4 fl3 -- �» i„ t to C M < r � t i•� AM WI, i ,t z" .. � r x u x. Wall SA � v 3¢ B ,,w` L: < I � 2 � p L E � d 3 0 � � r P 9v�Y IyI1f i Y 4 S Yfiwr�Yu•��,� TI q•�:Y�f�J'�V'i' }a�� 41,E ...w -- _�.....»,N..�„_.•.. �......, ■ 'gy ED (D n Q O O .. " \U `V �X CD rn n O N � (D 0 r� y a a `c • ' 1 a 1 • 1 1 1 • 1 • • 1 • z