HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06071988 - FC.2 FC## a
ToBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: I. Finance Committee Contra
Supervisor Nancy Fanden, Chair v������,,�}}t,,,,
` Supervisor Tom Powers Costa
DATE: ( ;O^
June 7 , 1988 vv ..., „J
suBJecTCONSIDERATION OF ONE-TIME CONTRIBUTION
FOR PRENATAL CARE REFERRAL SERVICE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve, in concept, a one-time $10,000 County contribution for the
development of a prenatal care referral service.
2. Consider this to be a one-time only contribution.
3 . Consider funding during the Budget Committee and Public Hearings on
the 1988-89 budget.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
A one-time contribution for participation in the development of a prenatal
referral system will cost the County $10,000. Alameda County has committed
$20 ,000 for this project.
BACKGROUND:
For some time, staff of the Health Services Department has been working
with Alameda County and the Perinatal Network of Alameda/Contra Costa
County to address the problems of infant mortality and low birthweight in
the two county region.
It is felt that a comprehensive system is needed to address these problems,
not just an information and referral service. The East Bay Perinatal
Council is committing to securing on-ongoing funding for the program.
Although the project is worthy, it represents a new program with no funding
source beyond the County' s current resources. As such, the recommendation
is to approve the concept of making the contribution but refer the final
decision to the Budget Committee deliberations along with consideration for
other. requests for funding out of the 1988-89 budget.
0
The attached information provides more details about what would be involved
in the program.
'CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD MITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
A.
slcNAruRE s Supervi r Nancy Fanden Zoervi�s�
or Tom Powers
ACTION OF BOARD ON une , APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT i ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES_ AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator' s Office ATTESTED 7 7pp8'8 _
Health Services Department PHI BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY
M38217-83 —,DEPUTY
IFROW Supervisor Tom Powersr .�St
1 Supervisor Sunne McPeak �.�V
�ATs, May 3, 1988 couay
8UeJECT, Prenatal Care Referral Service ,
SPtCIFIC R[QULST(91 OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION: '
Refer to Finance Committee the issue of Contra Costa County making a one
time contribution toward the development of a comprehensive prenatal
referral system in conjunction with the East Bay Perinatal Council and
Alameda County.
BACKGROUND:
Contra Costa County Health Services Staff has been working with Alameda
County's Oversight Committee on Infant Mortality, Alameda County Health
Services and the Perinatal Network of Alameda/Contra Costa to address
the problems of infant mortality and low birthweight in the two-county
region.
The East Bay Perinatal Council is willing to assume the task of securing
ongoing major financial support for a comprehensive prenatal referral
system, a regional "baby-line".
Alameda County has committed $20,000 toward the development of the
"baby-line". Contra Costa County has not committed any funds.
The projected start date for the referral system 'is Spring 1989.
OONTINURD ON ATTACNMENTt YtB SI0NATUf%61
R[COMM[NDATION Of COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AICOMMBNDATION Of BOARD COMMITT[[
APPROV9 OTN[R
aIONATUR[(e)
ACTION Of BOARD ON APPROV[D AS R[COMM[ND[D OTHLR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
. HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
To: Supervisor Sun Mc Peak Date: April 1, 1988
From: Subject,
Mark Finuc,a a PRENATAL CARE
Health Services Director REFERRAL SERVICE
Health Services staff has been working closely with Don Perata, Alameda County's
Oversight Committee on Infant Mortality, Alameda County Health Services and the
Perinatal Network of Alameda/Contra Costa to address the problems of infant mor-
tality and low birthweight in the two-county region.
The regional "baby-line" concept has been recently further developed and is an
excellent idea. It will need considerable financial support in order to be the
kind of comprehensive referral system we need. A simole information and
referral line is not enough. Tie reTerral system must also make prenatal
appointments, screen a woman for her level of risk in order to direct her to the
appropriate prenatal medical provider, provide information and advocacy about
the Medi-Cal system and even help the woman make transportation arrangements.
The East Bay Perinatal Council is willing to assume the task of securing the
onging major financial support for the prenatal referral system we would like to
see developed.
Earlier this year I advised the Board that other prenatal issue priorities
should come before development of this proposed referral system. I now believe
that the time is richt to offer our active support to the East Bay Perinatal
Council 's efforts.
I am committing Health Services staff to continue to work with the Council and
related programs to develop a system that will serve Contra Costa's needs. In
addition, I would recommend that the Board of Supervisors consider issuing a
challenge grant of $10,000 to match Alameda County's $20,000. Contra Costa's
funds would not be released until the Council had secured sufficient financial
commitments to initiate the full system needed. In addition, this contribution
would be for one time only. The projected start date for the referral system
would be Spring, 1989.
KB:MF:jb
cc: Supervisor Nancy Fande; 1�
Supervisor Tom Powers ; ,�
Supervisor Robert Schroder ! J�
Supervisor Tom Torlakson AP,R Z 0 t000
Phil Batchelor
A-41 s181
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
To: Finance Committee Date: May 17 , 1988
Supervisor Nancy Fanden
Supervisor Tom Powers
From:Kerry E. Harms, Assistant Subject: JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP
County Administrator - Fi ance CHANNEL PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION•
Consider testimony from the Coalition of Labor and Business (COLAB)
related to the status of the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel Project.
BACKGROUND:
On April 26 , the Board considered the status report from COLAS on the
John F. Baldwin Ship Channel Project. The issue was referred to the
Finance Committee for further discussion with interested parties.
Attached is a copy of the referral and the background materials
relating to the project.
KEH:gm
Enclosure
Adopt&d this Order on April 26, 1988 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Schroder
NOSS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: John F. Baldwin Ship Channel Project
The Board received a letter dated April 11, 1988 from
Paul F. Hughey, Executive Director, Coalition of Labor and Business
(COLAB) , 1030 Shary Court, Suite B, Concord 94518, transmitting a
status report on the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel Project.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the letter from COLAB is
REFERRED to the Finance Committee and the County Administrator.
CC: COLAB
Finance Committee
County Administrator
t -by cer:ity that::ils Is a true and eortcopof
V:'. -,i 13kc;n and enterec: ::: Cae m.'r.:.,!es of the
E--:.id _. Supervisors Gn !~e dsi_ sho-wn.
ATTRoZL. air
of the Board
of County Administrator
ey . Deputy
COALITION OF LABOR AND BUSINESS
Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano Counties
1030 Shary Court, Sufte B
Concord CA 84518
Telephone 415/676-3272
Member Orpantzations: April 11, 1988
Alameda County Building and
Construction Trades Council
Alameda County Property OwnersAssociaton TO: Boards of Supervisors
Associated General Contractors of Contra Costa and Solano Counties
California—East Bay District
Building Industry Association of Status Report on John F. Baldwin Ship Channel Project
Northern California
Crrpenters Locals No.180 and 1622 Dear Supervisors:
IZ-hevron.USA
Chevron Land BDevelopment I will be in Washington,D.C. , this week to provide
annual testimony in support of California port, harbor,
Clorox Company and channel improvement projects, including the John F.
Contra Costa Board of Realtors Baldwin Ship Channel project. It is timely, therefore,
Contra Costa County Building and that you be provided with a current status report on
Construction Trades Council this project.
Contra Costa County Central
Labor Council Background In the 1950 's, the private companies oper-
ContraCosta Council atin3 docks in our two Counties, as well as the Port of
Stockton, became concerned about the ability of the exist-
Council ofIndustries ing ship channel to accomodate the larger ships which
East Bay Construction Equipment Dealers were then on the drawing boards. The Channel essentially
Exxon,USA had not been deepened since its opening in the late 1920 's
and early 1930' s. The basic depth was 35 feet from
Hayward Chamber of Commerce Richmond to Point Edith above Avon near Martinez, and 30
l.dkNLocalsNo.3M,M,1245 feet from there to the Port of Stockton. As the ships
w� became larger, this depth was beginning to constrict the
type and size of ships that could call at the docks and
'-`-or Sand&Gravel piers of our two Counties as well as at Stockton resulting
ars Local No.88 in increasing transportation costs.
r.Ing and Plastering Institute
1ortdemCalifornia In response to this perceived shortcoming, the
0e Sail Co. Companies retained a former San Francisco District Engi-
neer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to make
a(SolanoCounties Building Trades a study of the developing situation. As a result, a
-:until brief was filed with the Corps and Congress, resulting
.IandChamber ofCommerce in authorization for an improvement project in 1965.
xsting Engineers Local No.3 Details are contained in the attached testimony that I
;ificBell will be presenting to the House and Senate Appropriation
Sub-Committees this week.
Aic Gas and Electric
.mrbers and Gas Filters Local No.14/ Current Status
ambers and Steamfitten Local No.159 Completed Construction
-rt ofOakland 1) The San Francisco Bar has been deepened from
uisrWNapsBuilders Exchange 50 feet to 55 feet and the main channel widened
Sleamfitlers local No.3a2 to 1, 000 feet.
2) A Southampton Shoals Channel, 45 feet in depth
pfd°`°'°""d�O"t"`1OfA"OCt'tlOn has been provided to the Chevron Long Wharf and .
(parr;a,ust) up to the entrance to the Richmond Harbor.
' -2-
A separate project will provide an appropriate channel and
dockside depth for the Port of Richmond.
3) The Stockton Channel has been deepened from 30 feet to
35 feet and the Channel was straightened and widened in
some limited reaches.
Remaining Construction
The portion to be completed to a depth of 45 feet
from Richmond to Avon, is known as Phase 3. It begins
with the Richmond Main Ship Channel for a length of about
three miles to the south of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
The Channel under the Bridge leading into San Pablo Bay
is naturally deep and does not require dredging. About
three miles into San Pablo Bay, the Bay becomes shallower
and dredging will be required across the Pinole Shoals
upstream to a point near Oleum, where the Union Oil Com-
pany dock is located. . From there to Martinez, traversing
the Carquinez Strait, the water is very deep and requires
no dredging. Near the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, shallower
water is encountered again and dredging to the approved 45
foot depth would be required up to Point Edith, just above
the Tosco Refinery dock. At various locations along the
Channel, turning basins -would be improved.
During 1987, the Corps commissioned an Operations Study to update
information on current use of the Channel, projected plans of
users, and any particular navigation or piloting problems that
should be addressed during design or construction.
The Corps, at this point in time, is doing preliminary design work
and conducting environmental and hydrology studies on the Bay-
Delta Model. The most significant environmental problem is that
modelstudies indicate that the deepening of Phase 3 would induce
an approximate 58 increase in salinity upstream. The Corps is
conducting additional model studies testing various hydrologic
features such as underwater dams or sills which would completely
mitigate the calculated salinity increase. The State Department
of Water Resources is cooperating with theCorps in this study.
All adverse environmental impacts must be mitigated. The problem
of dredged material disposal is common to all projects in the
S.F. Bay area.
Issues There are several significant issues that your Boards
should begin to address:
1) The first issue to be resolved is whether Phase 3 of this
Project is grandfathered in, l.e. , that continuous con-
struction has been underway since 1974, and the pre-1986
cost-sharing arrangement applies. This would greatly
minimize the cost to the sponsors and beneficiaries. We
maintain we are covered under the previous cost-sharing
formula. We should carefully calculate our method of
approach on this question.
2) The very tentative cost of Phase 3 is approximately $40
to $ mill on dollars. Under the new navigation cost-
sharing legislation adopted by the Congress in 1986 (Copy
attached) , sponsoring agencies must contribute 25% of the
cost of dredging channels up to 45 feet. Hence, we are
looking at a local share of approximately $10 to $15
million dollars if the new formula applies to this project.
There are important public benefits such as maintaining
jobs and tax base, however, realistically, the direct
beneficiaries of this project will have to provide the
local share.
Therefore, you should begin to study various possible
governmental arrangements or entities which could collect
appropriate fees or charges from the beneficiaries. It
may be that something as simple as an assessment district
could perform this task, however, the merits and demerits
of all alternatives such as Port and Harbor Districts
should be considered. Special State legislation may be
required.
31 When a suitable governmental mechanism is selected, then
financing alternatives should be studied. It would
appear that it would be desirable to sell bonds, as in an
assessment district, so that the cost to the beneficiaries
could be spread out over a longer time frame. The option
of paying a lump sum charge should be afforded. It should
be noted that financing assurances must be provided before
construction will proceed.
In su,-n-nary, the i.nmmediate issues are: 1) are we Grandfathered in?
2) that kind of governmental entity is best to collect user fees and
costs from the beneficiaries?, and 31 What kind of financing
should be developed?
Other Concerns In a meeting with BGEN Patrick Kelly, the South
Pacific Division Engineer, last year, I asked him to investigate
two areas of concern.
* Can we proceed with the construction (dredgingl of the
South Richmond Channel now? There are minimal environ-
mental effects from this section of the Channel and it
would provide benefits to the Port of Richmond and other
shippers in the Richmond area. The question here is
whether this portion of the Channel can stand the test of
a favorable cost-benefit ratio. The Corps has not yet
responded to this question.
* Is it possible to shorten the present time schedule for
completion of the various studies the Corps is conducting?
The present schedule anticipates that a General Design
Memorandum and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
will be produced in 1991. I have received a letter from
BGEN Kelly- advising me that preliminary study indicates
that it may be possible to shorten the schedule by 11
months with careful management of the environmental and
design studies.
Conclusion This is an important infrastructure project for both
of our Counties. As we are increasingly involved in international
-4-
trade, we must remain competitive by providing a channel that
can handle the modern ships that use the channel. As our trans-
portation costs increase because of an inadequate channel, we
run the risk of being non-competitive, to the detriment of our
economy.
I will be pleased to meet with you or your staff_ to discuss
these issues.
Ver u ours,
Paul F. Hughey
Executive Director
y Cb " C P' a a w e C } n
! a pyp n O v� .» � •�
god Z�bo•� •-syro� � �� ge�C' r `py ° �o3 ��
G••C.5 u -e
+Cc +�5 �y . n w
GL v a O �+ ~ �Qb . 'wr.. 1nr'► .Z�``�"' Q ,•`t O !JCy! ��
� "#• ws Za; .i. QVSpOC �, V } o
SQ O•►i v'S ,,. ; T�.y G Q C Q v w ip a iti -y O C6�+ w �' v
w
m � C�! j tae v`�•:3�..�'C��"`"" E� 5 t Q'r` a � 4 ?., .. O•y 'bC
IIca
` r v,r l•.+. „' (`. - w r.r t-
'
- O
Cab ` ° ..•°-» .� "� = p`•�•C ..` a rtJ �.
2-rbb
o� a "•C .» LL � � �.°' �� �pC � a. 4 O ` a''� y O• r � 'i
O� s� G O O y Q �•" C�+w C �0. ��`" g"4 s
Jwati.�«aCO .Vw � C � O �,jtSy" OO �iv CG •�lwYpw�„' `�,� 'b Cla1 "+1C w
qG
o o a o v 0 r � p p -C
4pp,�'jy t► # y '~V a w w b *+ C u vy L+ •Z s LZ v��L" i 06'� b �1
41 •4 F: p•„.y a; L� u a y��• A Z-C op a a• pq`.'C x C
ro•c.gyo;�p o .� ,7r -.�` ybaa 'a3'` " eti a .c'rr � a
. w rOOvi � �-pC. 35ak ` W r :3.- ♦ �` av� C Z � v ,, Pw a+ C F. � aC wo
w p a0p a ?�+a �+• p .W4. V a4 w-C w Q,�. 0 „ Z H��� :• oc -CEJ
.' �. v C �' `�•• � nUvp'••. �"Cy` a V n` atir
�, � " 4 r""' r r v�. ,L` a •°Q� R. X V w 4 ° � � .4'.» a �` "'��`-, L1,�-• w '`
wykY � � � �� -ten • ao �,.,'�' p � Baa .. �� a r � � v ..� a�a r'� L'Aos`�c
V Cass-�` W a•� •re
`3ur� w v-« � ••. bv,,n
�c zAL
a s a v rr ny Qiy a �� p +D Mtw" y
p y�rwp�
ts
•3� q.� � v � ���.. pQ s4 flr �4~��� � � QCi �,rv• � �w,
'� ��
to, a w .:CA
i aorQ, a �a 3� oa� L� ° � p
ts 13
4 $ a a
.y � IiC O O�w w� � w ;i,�• � �w b�. �a+`�' ,� ) `• � .� x a "p'�y•r
ta
.: � �'•.„� ��4 �«ysl 4� L C�`�,ag �w � �!M �,,,� 5i '►+V'� r'� �•'S+ �w 4
c "r F` Z ° �� »� y [ 3��C � e .� a� - � . pyo +c•e y�� C � 2 �-c�w'.c� o���
�� a �-3 I � -0t II
ma Ila lzg �s � � t
C3 c
�N c.L 3
S U M M A R Y
Requested Amount
Fiscal Year
1989
Project President's Budget Purpose of Funding
San Francisco Bay to $1,700,000 Continue hydrological
Stockton Ship Channel studies of hydraulic
(John F. Baldwin and salinity barrier for
Stockton Ship Channels) Baldwin Channel on Bay
and Delta Model and con-
tinue design of Phase 3.
April 14, 1988
TESTIMONY
*j name is Paul F. Hughey. I am the Executive Director of the Coalition
of Labor and Business for Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano Counties, California.
My organization would like to express our appreciation for the continued
appropriations the Committee has provided to enable proper planning, design
and construction for the San Francisco to Stockton Ship Channel improvement
project. This very important improvement is vital to the long range economic
viability of the large area it serves. We also greatly appreciate the mauler
in which the Corps of Engineers is carefully considering the environmental im-
pact of this project within the guidelines provided by the Congress. We approve
of the careful analysis of environmental, economic and social factors as they
relate to this project and we will cooperate fully in providing any information
or assistance the Corps may require to enable proper judgment in initiating
further phases of construction.
Background
A brief was filed with the Corps of Engineers in 1958, requesting a study
of the feasibility of improving the main shipping channel between San Francisco
and the Port of Stockton. As a result, the study was funded by the Congress
under an appropriation sponsored by the late Congressman John F. Baldwin. This
project, described in House Document No. 208 of the 89th Congress, 1st Session,
was azthorized and approved by the Congress in September 1965. As a part of
this project, the San Francisco Bar has been deepened from 50' to 55' and the
main shipping channel into San Francisco Bay widened. Some minor additional
construction was also provided near the Port of Richmond and on the levee system
of the upper San Joaquin Rover.
In order to expedite work on portions of this overall project, the project
was divided into five phases or sections. Commencing at the entrance to San
Francisco Bay, Phase 1, the widening and deepening of the San Francisco Bar to
55' has been completed.
Phase 2 consisted of deepening the Southampton Shoals Channel from 35' to
45' for a distance of approximately three miles. This phase has been completed.
It provides the vitally needed deeper channel to the Port of Richmond which has
placed its first container berth in operation, and a better approach to the
Chevron, USA, Richmond Refinery wharf. Construction was completed on this phase
in Fiscal Year 87.
Phases 3 and 4, remaining to be completed, consist of deepening the exist-
ing 35' channel through San Pablo Bay to 45' and the lower Suisun Bay 35' Chan-
nel to 45' . These two channels are separated by the 8 mile long Carquinez Strait
which is very deep and requires no dredging. Corps model studies indicate that
Phase 3 will induce about a 5% increase in salinity levels up stream in the Delta.
Therefore, the Corps is conducting engineering and model studies on various types
of underwater salinity barriers or sills in the Carquinez Strait to mitigate the
effects of this phase in order to maintain or improve water quality in the Delta.
Page 2
Phase 5 consisted of deepening: the Stockton Ship Channel and upper Suisun
Bay Channel from 30' to 35' from Point Edith, upstream of Martinez, to the Port
of Stockton. Construction commenced on this phase in October 1982, and was
completed in Fiscal Year 87.
The Economy
The Sam Francisco Bay is known throughout the world as one of the world's
great harbors. In 1984, the latest year for which Corps of Engineers figures
are available, some 50 million tons of cargo passed through the Golden Gate.
Almost two thirds of this total passed over the public and private docks of
Contra Costa County and Solano County via the existing John F. Bald-win Sbip
Channel.
Five of the six petroleum refineries in Northern California, representing
some 800,000 barrels per day of throughput, lie on this channel. Also on this
channel is the ;world's largest sugar refinery, C&H at Crockett, importing almost
1 million tons of raw sugar each year; a major steel plant; chemical plants;
paper mills; a gupsum plant; expanding general cargo facilities; and major electric
power generating plants of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company which are partial-
ly dependent upon shipment of fuel oil at various times.
Also served by this channel are three important naval installations: the
Naval Fuel Supply Depot at Point Molate, near Richmond; the U.S. Naval Shipyard
(a Nuclear Submarine repair facility) at Mare Island, Vallejo; and the U.S. Naval
Weapons Station at Concord, which is shifting to containerization and which will
require a deeper channel. The importance of a safe and adequate shipping channel
to our Navy is obvious. It might be noted that the Corps does not include nation-
' al defense installations in computing the cost-benefit ratio of projects.
Mr. Chairman, given the present balance of payment problems, it would seem
obvious that everything possible should be done to reduce transportation costs
and improve efficiency, while minimizing environmental impacts.
In 1984, some 1,000 tankers entered San Francisco Bay. Over 220 of these
vessels had a draft of 35' or more which is the present dock side depth of all
of the petroleum refineries and terminals on the channel. These vessels have to
anchor in South San Francisco Bay and have a portion of their cargo lightered
off before they can proceed partially loaded to the refinery or terminal docks.
This is an environmentally unsound practice, since it is known that the greatest
risk of oil spillage occurs when it is necessary to transfer cargo. A deepening
of the channel would enable these ships to proceed directly to their docks, there-
by reducing time and transportation costs and reducing environmental hazard.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the long-range viability of the San Francisco Bay Area regional
economy is dependent upon the completion of this project. The last significant
improvements to this main shipping channel were completed in the 193O's. The
world shipping fleet has changed dramatically since that time. The ships are
much larger in every respect and unless this channel is improved, the region can-
not remain competitive, to the detriment of our nation. Given the importance of
Page 3
international trade, the balance of payments and the very large sums collected
in customs receipts by the San Francisco District each year, true national
interests are involved.
We request the Committee to appropriate the amount of $1,700,000 to enable
this project to proceed expeditiously.
Mr. Chairman, we thank the Committee for its attention to our concerns.
Thank you.
Probation Department Contra Gerald S. Buck
County Probation Officer
Adminigtrative Offices Costa �/ to Mc
10th Floor County f- 5-23
Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez,California 94553-1289
(415)646-2700
To: Finance Committee @Date: 5/12/88
(N. Fanden, T. Powers)
Board of Supervisors
From: Gerald S. Buck, subject: probation Department
Cc,lnty Probation Officer Reorganization/Manage-
ment Classifications
With regret I respectfully request that my proposal for reor-
ganization and classification adjustments be withdrawn from
further review by the Board of Supervisors.
I remain convinced that my proposed adjustments are in the best
interest of the Department and would improve our effectiveness.
However, in light of the need to fill vacant key management
positions as soon as possible, and many other pressing and
important matters (Juvenile Hall overcrowding, an excessive
workload and insufficient funding) , I do not have the time or.
energy to pursue reorganizational adjustments any further at
this point. I hope to get back to this in the future.
GSB:ds
cc: Phil Batchelor
Harry Cisterman
Local #1
Management Team
Other- Board Members
4
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
To: FINANCE COMMITTEE Date: May 3, 1988
From: fE*OREMER, Di ector Subject: STATUS REPORT: WORK FURLOUGH
Justice System Programs EXPANSION REFERRAL FROM
SUPERVISOR POWERS
The Sheriff's Department has been exploring various alternatives to relieve
the detention system overcrowding. Department staff are currently
developing a detailed proposal for an electronic home detention program.
The proposal will be available June 1, 1988.
In general, the proposal calls for sending the current minimum security
work furlough population home. This population would be supervised through
the use of electronic monitoring. It is anticipated that Project Deuce
participants currently housed at the Marsh Creek Detention Facility would
be relocated to the Work Furlough Facility. Classification review is
currently being undertaken to determine what inmates could then be moved
from the Martinez Detention Facility to Marsh Creek.
There are several significant cost considerations being studied related to
this proposal:
1. There are equipment and staff costs associated with electronic
monitoring.
Z. There is a potential loss of revenue if work furlough
participants are sent home and replaced with inmates who are not
eligible for work furlough.
3. A number of inmates with medical holds could be moved from the
Martinez Detention Facility to Marsh Creek if there were adequate
health services staff available.
4. Security upgrades to facilities may be required by changing
populations.
The proposal will outline the costs and benefits associated with various
approaches.
GR/jw
cc: Gerald Mitosinka, Assistant Sheriff