Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03161999 - C116 C.116 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 16, 1999, by the following vote: .AYES: Supervisors Gioia,Uilkema, Gerber, DeSaulnier and Canciatnilla NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Can this date, the Board of Supervisors considered Report No. 9901 from the 1198-99 Contra Costa County Grand Jury entitled "Compliance and Review Committee Report". Supervisor Uilkema moved acceptance of the consent item, and Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Grand Jury Report No. 9901 is ACCEPTED. T 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: March 16, 1999 Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of supervisors and County Administrator By: 'r w , Deputy Viler A REPORT,gy T11P199;S-99 CONTRA COSTA COUNT 725 Court y Strut Ry Ulartinez' California 94553 Report No 99tH C0l gPL'ANCE ANI) CQa'K, -TT'�E ftPpRT rt+i,( i a g- OC FED 3'y TRE GRAND Date' d FOR.FILIN 1L NCE W. . JURYF Date: tRE N � C3F T F ---_ ""----- Section 933. & 933.05 California Government bode Section_233. Qomments and Reports on Section 933.05 Response to Grar d jury Grand Juryecommendations Recommendations- Content (C) leo later than 90 days after the Requirements; Personal Ap-pearance by grand jury submits a final report on the Responding Party; Grand .fury Report to operation of any public agency subject to Affected Agency. its reviewing authority, the governing (a) For purposes of subdivision (c) of body of the public agency shall comment Section 933, as to each a grand jury finding, to the presiding- judge of the superior court the responding person or entity shall on the findings and recommendations indicate one of the following; pertaining to matters under the control of (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. the governing body, and every elective (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or county officer or agency head for which partially with the finding, in which case the the grand jury has responsibility pursuant response shall specify the portion of the to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 finding that is disputed and shall include days to the presiding judge of the superior an explanation of the reasons therefor. court,with an information copy sent to the (B) For purposes of subdivision (c) of board of supervisors, on the findings and section 933, as to each grand jury recommendations pertaining to hatters recommendation, the responding person under the control of that county officer or or entity shall report on of the following agency head and any agency or actions; agencies which that officer or agency (1) The recommendation has been head supervises or controls, in the findings implemented,with a summary regarding and recommendations, All such comments the implemented action. and reports shall forthwith be submitted to (2) The recommendation has not yet been the presiding judge of the superior court implemented, but will be implemented in who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of the future, with a timeframe for all responses to grand jury reports shall be implementation. placed on file with the clerk of the public (3) The recommendation requires further agency and the office of the county clerk, analysis, with and explanation of the or the mayor when applicable, and shall scope and parameters of an analysis or remain on file in those offices. One copy study, and a timeframe for the matter to shall be placed on file with the applicable be prepared for discussion by the officer grand jury final report by, and in the or director of the agency or department control of the currently impaneled grand being investigated or reviewed, including jury,where it shall be maintained for a the governing body of the public agency minimum of five years. Leg.H.1961 ch. when applicable.This timeframe shall not 1284, 1963 ch. 674, 1974 chs.393.1396, 1977 exceed six months from the date of chs. 107, 187, 1980 ch. 543. 1981 ch.203, publication of the grand jury report. 1982 ch. 1408 sec. 5, 1985 ch.221 sec.1, eff. (4) The recommendation will not be .7/12/85 ch 690 sec. 1, 1988 ch. 1297,1997 implemented because it is not warranted ch.443 or is not reasonable,with an explanation therefor. The foregoing are portions of Section 933, the responding party is responsible for compliance with all of the requirements. Report No. 9901 COMPLIANCE AND REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT The Contra Costa County Civil grand Jury is annually impaneled to investigate city and county governments, special districts and certain nonprofit corporations to ensure unctions are performed in a lawful, economical and efficient manner. Recommendations resulting from these investigations are listed, along with the Target Agency reply. In accordance with Section 933(c) of the California Penal Code, the governing body of public agency or its designated administrator must respond to these recommendations to the presiding judge within ninety(90) days; and elected officials must respond to the recommendations within sixty(60) days. These responses are a matter of public record and are available, upon request, from the clerk of the Superior Court. The Compliance and Review Committee of the 19981999 grand jury has compiled the reports and recommendations of the 1998.99 grand jury and the responses made thereto. The following are the recommendations of the 1997-98 grand jury and the responses received. In addition, the Committee requested follow-ups of 1996-97 grand juries' recommendations; however, all responses have not been as yet received. INDEX 9802 The Costly Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 9803 Affirmative Action in County Hiring 9804 The Year 2000 9805 Conditions of Detention Facilities 9806 Los Medanos Community Hospital District 9807 Focus on Youth at Risk 9808 Law Enforcement in Contra Costa County 9809 Americans with Disabilities Act 9810 Volunteers in Police Service Report No. 9802 THE COSTLY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Background: Formed in the mid-1960's, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ConFire), had its boundaries enlarged in 1994 to include Oakley, Pinole, Riverview, West County and a portion of the Bethel Island Fire Protection district. The governing body of ConFire is the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. A report of the 1992-93 Grand Jury (Report No. 3315: Fire Protection AJs , noted that firefighter salaries were set by the Board using a"ratcheting" formula based upon the `°average of the the top ten fire districts in the Bay Area°' and that, by agreeing to this formula, the Board had lost its' flexibility to set salaries according to ConFire's ability to pay. THE 1997-98 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1: The Board freeze all pay and benefit increases in future contracts for Confire until an independent salary and benefit study can be completed. All future wage increases should be tied to the level of the District funding after capital reserves have been restored. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation requires further analysis. B. An independent consultant was hired to review district compensation practices. Recommendations are being considered to revise the Minimum Staffing and Holiday provisions. Pay and benefit levels were found by the consultant to be within reasonable limits compared to 11 other agencies, and will be the subject of the meeting and conferring process. Capital needs for facilities and equipment will be taken into account. RECOMNMNDATION NO. 2: The Board hire a competent, independent consultant to conduct a complete evaluation of the management, staffing, pay scales and operations of the organization and make recommendations for improvement within existing funding levels. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. An independent consultant' was hired to review staffing, pay scales, operations and existing financing. In addition, the County Administrator conducted a management audit of operations, staffing, policies and procedures. All recommendations are being implemented that do not rewire the"meet and confer" process. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: The Board hire an interim Fire Chief to reorganize the Department, cut costs, and streamline operations in accordance with the recommendations of the consultant and his own best judgment. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. A new Fire Chief has been hired effective May 1, 1995. Chief Keith Richter is implementing recommendations of both the Davis Company Study and County Administrators Management Audit. RECOMMENDATION NO. 4: The Board request CDFF to review ConFire operations and to submit a proposal to provide services. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The new Chief has contacted the California Division of Forestry to determine the State's interest in providing services. The State has expressed no interest at this time. RECOMMENDATION NO. 5: The Board of Supervisors change the position of Fire Chief from an"at will" position to either a multi-year contract position or to a merit position. 'The Davis Co., Sacramento, CA RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. County department heads and the Fire Chief are appointed by the Board of Supervisors after recommendation by the County Administrator, and are subject to an annual performance evaluation. No change is contemplated at this time. RECON vLENDATIO�vr NO. 6: The Board also invite and evaluate proposals from private operators for operation of Contra Costa Fire Protection District. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Board has investigated a great deal of time in evaluating fiscal and operational issues at the District. The new Chief has taken charge and is implementing recommendations. The Board has directed that proposals be placed on the negotiating table to.reduce labor costs. Invitations for proposals from private operators are not contemplated at this time. ..................................... .........................................................................__... ......... ......... ......... ....._.. ....... ......... ......... ..............__.... .. ......... ......... ........ ....................................................................... _ ....... ......... ......... ........ ....... . .................................................................................................... - ..........._. _... . Report No. 9803 Affirmative Action in County Hiring Declare a Victory and Withdraw Background: Since 1975 Contra Costa County has been hiring and promoting personnel under a Consent Decree issued by a Federal district judge. The Consent Decree is the result of an agreement among parties to a lawsuit brought against the County for"an alleged pattern and practice of employment discrimination against females and persons of racial and ethnic minority status" although the Court issued no findings substantiating any of the allegations. The 1997-98 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommended.- RECOMMENDATION ecommended:RECOMMENDATION NO. 1: The County petition Federal district court to lift the 1975 Consent Decree, RESPONSE: The recommendation will not be implemented, The Consent Decree operates to insure county compliance with Federal EEO requirements on an ongoing basis. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2: The County continue to recruit broadly to attract candidates from all groups in the population. RESPONSE: The recommendation will be implemented in the future as it has been in the past. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: The County hire and promote the best qualified candidates regardless of gender and race or ethnicity. RESPONSE: The recommendations will be implemented in the future as it has been in the past. Report No. 9804 THE YEAR 2000 READY OR NOT--HERE IT COMES! Background: "The Year 2040 issue is global, affecting businesses as well as governments-- including Contra Costa County. The basic problem is that software running on many computers uses only the last two digits to designate the year. When computers were a new technology and disk storage space was expensive, programmers designed systems to assume the century was 1900. If not re- programmed to read all four digits of the year, systems may either shut down in confusion or, perhaps worse, may calculate and produce erroneous outcomes." This quotation was in the report by KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, made to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on January 31, 1997. THE 1997-98 CONTRA.COSTA COUNTY GRANTS JURY RECOMMENDED: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1: The County verify completion of the main computer system conversion. RESPONSE. This recommendation is being implemented. The verification of the county's main systems is scheduled for completion not later than December 31, 1998. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2: The County ensure that all County individual and LAN-- based applications are compatible with the main system at Year 2000. RESPONSE: This recommendation is being implemented. The Department of Information Technology continuously provides county departments with information on the status of software and hardware to ensure compatibility with the main system at Year 2000. ................................................. . ............................................................................................................ ....... ......... ......... ......... .......... _..... ......... ......... ............................... .... ......... ......... ......... ......... .... .._.. ......... ......... . ........ ........... ....... ......... ....... ... . .................... ....... .. ................ .. ... RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: The County initiate a tracking system to inform the Board of Supervisors of the status of outside entities' compatibility with the County's system. RESPONSE: This recommendation is being implemented. Action has been initiated to track the status of outside entities' compatibility with the county's computer systems. RECOMMENDATION NO. 4: The County implement a certification process that allows outside user units to confirm compatibility with the County's main system. RESPONSE: This recommendation is being implemented. The response to Recommendation 3 also applies here. RECOMMENDATION NO. 5: The County ensure that hardware operated by embedded chip technology is capable of operating in the Year 2000. RESPONSE: Recommendation not accepted. With regard to Conclusion No. 5, it needs to be noted that the County's Director of Information Technology serves as Co-Chair of a State"Year 2000 External Interface Task Force" which is dealing with external interface design and policy issues. RECOMMENDATION NO. 6: The County ensure that all contracts for the purchase of computer related and electronic date sensitive devices utilize contract language requiring Year 2000 compliance. RESPONSE: This recommendation has been implemented. Contracts for the purchase of computers and other types of electronic date sensitive equipment require that such equipment be Year 2000 compliant, ............... Grand Jury Report 9805 Conditions of Detention Facilities BACKGROUND The California Penal Code requires that the Grand Jury inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the County. The Health and Safety Code requires the State Fire Marshall or his representative to inspect each detention facility annually. Further, the County Health Officer is required to inspect and report on every holding facility annually. The 1997-98 Grand Jury reviewed for content and currency each Board of Corrections biannual report for every holding facility in the County. Additionally, the Grand Jury learned that the West County Detention Facility has a booking facility, completed in 1991, which has never been used. RECOMMENDATION NO. I The Delta Municipal Court Holding Facility be brought into compliance with the State of California Standards or the court find an alternate solution. RESPONSE NO. I A. Does not apply to the Office of the Sheriff, B. Although security is provided by the Sheriff, the Facilities are controlled by the court. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 Relieve overcrowded conditions at Main Detention Facility by using, when appropriate, a portion of the under-populated West County Detention Facility. RESPONSE NO. 2 A. This recommendation is accepted with qualification. B. The inmate population at West County Detention Facility has already been increased; however, a lack of staff, to include adequate medical and mental health personnel, limit current ability to transfer additional inmates. Our supplemental budget requests continue to include the necessary staffing increases. They have not been approved. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 Unused West County Detention Booking Facility, if not activated for that purpose, be modified and used as a police agency drop-off'Receiving/Assessment Center for juvenile offenders awaiting disposition. RESPONSE NO. 3 A. This recommendation is rejected with qualification. B. The reason the booking facility has not been opened is lack of funding. If funding becomes available for this facility, it should be used as designed. However, we will work with the County Administrator and ether county agencies to study alternative uses for the space. RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 The Sheriff encourage all police departments to adopt standardized procedures and forms consistent with those used by the Sheriffs Department, or implement a centralized electronic booking system. RESPONSE NO. 4 A. This recommendation is accepted with qualification. B. The Office of the Sheriff has, for some time, encouraged county law enforcement agencies to adopt a single set of booking forms. A Chiefs of Police Association committee is working on this matter, but no resolution has been reached and the Sheriff does not have the power to unilaterally impose such a system, not to operate an electronic booking system without voluntary cooperation from other agencies. ................................ ......... ..............._... ....................._.. ..... ......... ......... .......... .. ..... .......................................................................................................... ......... ........ ..... ........................................................................................ Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Report No. 9807 Focus on Youth at Risk Findings Generally agree with all ten findings. Conclusions Generally agree with all nine conclusions. Recommendations I. This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The concept of establishing juvenile receiving/assessment centers throughout the county to be operated 24 hours a day is commendable and certainty a worthwhile goal. However, financial resources are simply not currently available to develop, staff and operate such centers. Z. This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The Board of Supervisors supports the concept of expanding community-based youth intervention panels and, in fact; a number of police agencies within the county are operating such programs. .Further analysis by county staff will be necessary to determine the feasibility of expanding such programs. 3. This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The Board of Supervisors supports the concept of expanding existing diversion programs designed for intervention with youth and timely involvement of parents or guardians. The expansion of such programs are limited by available financial and staffing resources. The feasibility of expanding such services requires further analysis by and coordination among all of the various agencies involved in the provision of such services. 4. The Board of Supervisors cannot implement this recommendation. The Board supports enforcement of existing laws including those for under-age alcohol consumption, illegal substance use, vandalism., truancy, weapons possession, and curfew violation. Such laws are currently enforced by law enforcement officers to the best of their ability with the resources available. 5. This recommendation has already been implemented to some extent. Some community-based agencies do charge fees for certain services related to juveniles. The County Probation Department charges minimal fees for juveniles who Report No. 9806 LOS MEDANOS COMMUNITY MUNITY HOSPITAL DISTRICT BACKGROUND: The Los Medanos Community Hospital .District(District) was established by public vote in 1945. An elected Board of Directors (Board)governs the District under the State of California Health and Safety and Government Codes. The District (LMCHD) operated a hospital in Pittsburg until 1994. Due to the cumulative pressures of inept management, changing healthcare systems, heavy borrowing (without voter approval), loss of market share and misguided leadership, the District filed for protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Notwithstanding its bankruptcy, the District must still comply with applicable laws and regulations. District taxpayers continue to pay taxes to a Hospital District no longer providing healthcare but still collecting funds intended for that purpose. Bond indebtedness for an empty building will continue for at least another seven years at the present repayment rate. THE 1997-98 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY RECO_MVENDS: RECOMMENDATION NO. 1: The District be dissolved. RESPONSE: This recommendation is premature. Before deciding whether dissolution is appropriate, the District must complete its Bankruptcy Plan and, in discussion with the public, determine whether the District should provide other health-related programs to the residents of the District. The District must remain in place until it has repaid its bond debt and performed its legally binding obligations under the Bankruptcy Plan. RECOM'VIENDATION NO. 2: In the interim, the District hire an independent accounting firm to act as manager and controller. RESPONSE: The District will hire a firm to act as its Disbursing Agent, pursuant to the terms of the Bankruptcy Plan. The District is in the process of evaluating whether that management firm can also handle the limited administrative and financial obligations remaining for the District, outside of the bankruptcy context. The District believes that an independent accounting firm is not typically equipped to manage the affairs of an organization, only to audit them. However, the District does agree that these management and control functions can be better performed by an outside management firm than by part-time employed staff. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: In the interim, the Board fulfill its obligations to divulge all financial records and submit a thorough fiscal audit. RESPONSE: The District has divulged all financial records and has submitted these records to annual, thorough financial audits. In fact, as noted throughout this Report, all financial records of the District remain available and audits for all prior years will soon be completed. Grand Jury Report No. 9807 FOCUS ON YOUTH AT RISK Collaboration is Key Background; The Grand .fury is concerned about children in Contra Costa County and believes that early intervention for at-risk youth is a proper investment of resources. Drug and alcohol use factors into juvenile offenses and results in great cost to society. The handling of juvenile offenders differs among localities. Recommendations: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors assume a leadership role in a collaborative effort among city and county agencies, law enforcement departments and schools to: 1. Establish juvenile receiving/assessment centers in locations throughout the county. These centers would be available 24 hours a day, staffed by persons with authority to hold juveniles for proper disposition(e.g., release to parents/guardians, relocation to Juvenile Hall, transfer to foster care, etc.). Facilities already in place which can be modified to house juveniles should be considered as receiving centers. Possibilities include some local police department holding facilities, West County Detention Center, Juvenile Hall facilities including Lion's Gate. RESPONSE NO. 1: This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The concept of establishing juvenile receiving/assessment centers throughout the county to be operated 24 hours a day is commendable and certainly a worthwhile goal. However, financial resources are simply not currently available to develop, staff and operate such centers. RECOMNIENDATIONT NO. 2: Expand community-based youth intervention panels, court-like processes for juvenile first-time offenders, which dispense age-appropriate and offense- appropriate remedies for child crime. RESPONSE NO. 2: This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The Board of Supervisors supports the concept of expanding community-based youth intervention panels and, in fact, a number of police agencies within the county are operating such programs. Further analysis by county staff will be necessary to determine the feasibility of expanding such programs. RECOTMNIENDATION NO. 3: Expand existing diversion programs designed for intervention with youth and timely involvement of parents/guardians. RESPONSE NO. 3: This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The Board of Supervisors supports the concept of expanding existing diversion programs designed for intervention with youth and timely involvement of parents or guardians. The expansion of such programs are limited by available financial and staffing resources. The feasibility of expanding such services requires further analysis by and coordination among all of the various agencies involved in the provision of such services. RECOINDATION NO. 4: Enforce existing laws, 'including those for under-age alcohol consumption, illegal substance use, vandalism, truancy, weapons possession, curfew violation. Law enforcement officers would be able to deliver juveniles to convenient receiving/assessment centers for appropriate processing. RESPONSE NO. 4: The Board of Supervisors cannot implement this recommendation. The Board supports enforcement of existing laws including those for under-age alcohol consumption, illegal substance use, vandalism, truancy, weapons possession, and curfew violation. Such laws are currently enforced by law enforcement officers to the best of their ability with the resources available. RECOTvIN1ENDATION NO. 5: Consider imposition of fees to parents/guardians to partially offset costs of operating programs. RESPOI'SE NO, 5. This recommendation has already been implemented to some extent. Some community-based agencies do charge fees for certain services related to juveniles. The County Probation Department charges minimal fees for juveniles who participate in the department's work program. Such programs, however, must be available to all and many juveniles and their families are unable to pay even minimal fees. Grand Jury Report 9808 LAW ENFQRCEM NT IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY )3ACKGRQUND .During the term of the 1997/98 Centra Costa County Grand Jury, visits and inspections of almost every law enforcement agency in the County were Made. The visits included inspection of jails and holding facilities, interview with various officials and ride-alongs with patrol officers. Every aspect of law enforcement in the County was inspected and discussed with 21 police chiefs and 17 city managers, among ether officials. Inspections were also made of three county jails, two county juvenile facilities, 11 city and four court holding facilities. Special districts with law enforcement responsibilities were also visited, inspected and officials interviewed. No fewer than 140 inspections and interviews were conducted by members of the jury, Response from the Office of the Sheriff- FINDING heriff: FId!DING-NO. 3 The Contra Costa County Sheriff s newly acquired, grant-funded helicopter has greatly increased the patrol in remote areas such as the Delta, East County and Mt. Diablo open spaces; has supplemented ground police actions and has assisted in other emergencies throughout the county, CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of the helicopter in its current use has been demonstrated. There remains a concern as to the future ability of the Sherif f°s Department to fund this unit without continued support by grant or financial participation by county and/or municipalities. RESPONSE NO, 3 A. This finding and conclusion is accepted with qualification. B. The program has certainly proved its worth, both in terms of ability to support ground operations and its success as a regional, multi-county program. It would he an even,greater benefit to area residents if other law enforcement agencies participated on a contractual basis. Such a possibility is being explored, but is not necessary at this time, to ensure program funding, C. The helicopter program is currently funded without county general fund monies. It is supported by State funds earmarked for special law enforcement programs, and that money is guaranteed for at least two more years. In addition, other funding sources are being considered that will ensure the program continues without the need to devote local county funds. FLNDING NO. 4 The recent transfer of the Office of Emergency Services to the County Sheriff's Department.has greatly improved communications during emergency situations and better coordinates disaster response. RESPONSE NO. 4 A. This finding is accepted with qualification. B. Although communications have certainly improved, and the overall operation of the Office of Emergency Services has benefited from the transfer, there are a number of remaining problems including antiquated communications equipment and inadequate staffing and facilities. These conditions are the direct result of fiscal problems created by State"takeaways" during the last six years. C. The Office of the Sheriff and the County Administrator's Office are working together to find the resources necessary to improve O.E.S. operations, and we hold to a valid hope that major deficiencies will be corrected within the near future, to include construction of a much-needed, new emergency operations center. FINDING NO. 6 In April, 1998, the Sheriff's marine Patrol began overseeing the clearing of derelict vessels from Delta waterways. Abandoned vessels create a navigational hazard, a health hazard due to leaking fuels and chemicals and are visually offensive. RESPONSE NO. 6 A. This finding is accepted. B. :Monies for this project were obtained through the California Department of Boating and Waterways. More funding and additional legislation is needed to address problems associated with abandoned commercial vessels, but recent actions by the State suggest at least some support may be forthcoming. FINDLNI G NO. 7 The Resident Deputy Program is used by the County Sheriffs Department in some unincorporated areas. Resident Deputies are dedicated to specific localities and are relieved of beat responsibilities, enabling them to interact with schools, service organizations, Municipal Advisory Committees and the business community, CONCLUSION The Resident Deputy program has effectively reduced crime, and the use of and traffic in illegal drugs. RESPONSE NO. 7 A. This finding and conclusion is accepted. B. The Resident Deputy Program has provided a critical, direct link between the Office of the Sheriff and the communities it serves. It is an important example of community policing; something the Office of the Sheriff has been devoted to since 1850. C. The program's success has lead to efforts to augment to include all unincorporated areas. FINDING NO. 8 The Property and Evidence Storage facility of the Sheriff's Forensic Services Division is inadequate to accommodate evidence and property or to facilitate the scientific examination of vehicles in criminal investigations. This operation is hampered by lack of space and personnel to process, store and purge items in their custody. RESPONSE NO, A. This finding is accepted. B. The Office of the Sheriff and the County Administrator's Office have been working for more than one year to locate adequate facilities without success. C. The most appropriate form of relief would be to build new facilities, but funding has not been identified. D. If better facilities are not obtained within the next year, there may be a serious threat to the integrity of the property system,jeopardizing thousands of criminal prosecutions. Comments: The Sheriff's Department, as the main law enforcement body, is well organized and managed despite a tight budget and shortage of personnel. All divisions within the Sheriff's Department have demonstrated professionalism and knowledge that should rival any county in the state. RESPONSE A. This finding is accepted with gratitude. B. The Sheriff is proud of the dedication, professionalism and expertise of the men and women of the Office of the Sheriff. It is gratifying that the Grand .fury, which is composed of representatives from communities throughout the county, share his belief Think of what could be accomplished if adequate funding and personnel were available. Grand Fury Report No. 9809 Americans With Disabilities Act Contra Cost County Not Complying Backgrounds The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law July 25, 1990. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires access by the disabled to public buildings. It contains requirements for new construction; for alterations or renovations to buildings and facilities, and for improving access to existing facilities that provide employment and services to the public. The ADA gives the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) authority to issue regulations and to provide technical assistance and enforcement of the ADA. However, the ADA did not provide funding. The Contra Costa County grand jury's investigation into the County's compliance with the ADA was focused on accessibility to county buildings and the facilities therein. RECON EMENDATION NO. I The Contra Costa County grand jury recommends the Board of Supervisors, in a timely manner, adopt and fund a policy that is more sensitive to the needs of their citizens and the requirements of the ADA. RESPONSE: The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted since current county policy has addressed building accessibility in a significant manner as described earlier. The Board is directing the County Administrator to continue timely and thorough review of all capital projects to ensure they are in compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 9810 VOLUNTEERS IN POLICE SERVICE Making it Happen BACKGROUND With today's community demands on police service, no police department is large enough to keep its community safe on its own. Effective crime pre- vention and law enforcement require the active involvement of a community's citizens. A partnership between the police department and its community is where volunteers are MAKING IT HAPPEN, This Grand Jury congratulates those agencies with volunteer programs and expresses its appreciation to all these individuals who are MAYUNG IT HAPPEN. THE 1997-98 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY RECONBI 4END: RECONEVENDATION: Some cities have no volunteer program, while others such as Antioch; Concord, .Pinole, Pittsburg and the Sheriff's Department stand as noteworthy examples for agencies considering establishing or expanding their volunteer programs. All cities and other police agencies are encouraged to create programs for police service volunteers. RESPONSE: No response received.