Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05091989 - 1.64 TO.;— BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR 1-064 County Administrator DATE: April 3, 1989 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON VARIOUS LITTER CONTROL REFERRALS Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION: 1. Accept the report of the County Administrator on various litter controls. 2. Request that the Sheriff-Coroner continue to develop a litter pick-up program using Work Alternative prisoners irrespective of their original violation and continue to explore uniform litter police reports and report back to the Board by June 1, 1989. 3. Support legislation which would clearly authorize Municipal Court Commissioners to sentence defendants to a work program on litter convictions and remove restriction that requires litter pick-up duty be performed within the judicial district in which the offense occurred. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This report does not make any recommendations with financial impact. REASONS FOR RECONtU20ATION/BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Board Order of December 29, 1988 the County Administrator has explored three litter control issues with the Municipal Court, Sheriff-Coroner and Probation Officer: 1. Special Litter Commissioners; 2. Uniform Litter Police Reports; and 3. Litter Clean-up Program. 1. Special Litter Commissioners: The results of appointing one or more Commissioners who would specialize in handling litter violations could be of benefit; however, there are several obstacles which seem to rule this out as an alternative. While exploring the feasibility of this issue, it was determined that these matters are routinely handled by the existing Court Commissioner along with a myriad of other criminal infractions, traffic offenses and small claims litigation. The Commissioners are very conversant on litter offenses and enforcement practices and do not feel that a "special" Commissioner would improve on that aspect. At the present time, the volume of litter offenses is fairly low. Approximately 98% of litter violations are either throwing cigarettes from vehicles (23111vc) or uncovered loads (23114vc). The Courts are currently in the process of transferring data to the information center so that, in the future, they can provide management reports that will identify litter activity in more detail for the Board's information. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other Signature(s): Action of Board on: MAY 9 1989 Approved as Recommended X Other Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN X Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain: Attested: MAY 9 7989 cc: County Administrator Phil Batchelor, Clerk of Sheriff-Coroner the Board of Supervisors Probation Officer and County Administrator Municipal Court Commissioners(�, By: �/�y/�� p�/,S DEPUTY 5 Page Two 2. Uniform Litter Police Reports: The Sheriff-Coroner was asked to discuss with the Contra Costa Police Chiefs' Association their willingness to require written police reports on all litter violations. The reports would clearly identify the severity of the offense and, where possible, the estimated cost of cleaning up the litter. Richard K. Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner has indicated that he will bring the issue before the Contra Costa Police Chief's Association for report to the County Administrator by June 1, 1989. 3. Litter Clean-up Program: The feasibility of establishing a program whereby individuals convicted of littering offenses would be required to participate in an organized litter clean-up program has been explored with the Sheriff-Coroner, Municipal Court, and Probation Officer. The Sheriff-Coroner has indicated that he would support the establishment of such a program and has staff pursuing the idea of implementing a litter pick-up program using Work Alternative prisoners irrespective of their original violation. He also indicated that a possible source of staff supervision funding could be Work Alternative Program fees. He will continue to explore these possibilities and report back to the Board by June 1, 1989. Roy Chiesa of the Municipal Court indicated that he had discussed this item with the four Court Commissioners. It was determined that Commissioners do not have the statutory authority to sentence defendants to work programs on litter convictions. The Commissioners believe that only a judge could impose a sanction, absent statutory amendments to expand the powers and authority of Court Commissioners. Their comments were that, there are both Penal and Vehicle Code provisions requiring that such litter pick-up duty be performed within the judicial district in which the offense occurred; which could create an adverse cost impact on the County in providing simultaneous and separate work programs in various areas. The Probation Officer stated that although he is in favor of such a program, he is unable to match, monitor or assist adult offenders in complying with Court ordered community services. He indicates that, "perhaps the county's litter clean up campaign could be coordinated with city sponsored programs such as operated by Danville and San Ramon.