Response to the 2012/2013 Grand Jury Report

There had been in fact a long-term, yet intermittent, leak in the ceiling of the jail for years, mainly affecting the property storage room, the vestibule shower area of cell #1 and of recent years in the dormitory room. The affects on the inside have presented as “bubbling” of the paint and in some areas a minor apparent deterioration of the ceiling/wall material/cement causing an aesthetic crumbling appearance to the surface. Water in the past has also leaked into a few ceiling mounted lights during severe weather conditions, usually during extreme high wind and rain. This had caused 1 light in the shower area of cell #1 to be disconnected temporarily, it now is fixed. The other 2 lights were in the dormitory room. There have been recent efforts to locate the cause of the leak and make necessary repairs by courthouse plant maintenance. At this time the repairs have been made. The entire jail and sheriff’s office has recently been painted by an inmate worker and the jail is currently in the best condition Honorable John P. Kennelly Response to the 2012/2013 Grand Jury Report it has been in years. The Grand Jury had inspected the jail prior to this maintenance and repairs. I personally advised a member of the law enforcement committee of these improvements and asked them to conduct a final review prior to writing their findings; however the request was not taken up to my knowledge. There is no indication that any affect from the former water damage has had an impact on the security of the jail, and instead these are nuisance and aesthetic issues. Note; the original and existing courthouse and jail was reportedly designed in 1948 and completed in 1952, a 61 year-old building. The jail was remodeled and up-graded around 1992/3. Additionally there recently have been up-grades and improvements to the elevator operation and room/area identifiers of the jail and sheriff’s office in general, in addition to the painting and other signage and security improvements.

The electrical power mentioned I believe was the small single ceiling light in the shower vestibule area of cell #1 which has been fixed.

I am not aware of any mold in the jail, including the holding area. The entire jail has recently been painted and none is visible that I am aware.

There is aesthetic damage to the exterior south/east wall of the courthouse stucco. Plant maintenance is aware. It does not effect the operations of the jail and sheriff’s office.

a. Intercom System: Planned improvement with Homeland Security Grant. b. Video Monitoring System: Planned improvement with Homeland Security Grant. c. Remote Control Lock System: Planned improvement with Homeland Security Grant. The sheriff’s office does in fact have plans to up-grade the security and operations capacity of the jail and sheriff’s office in general using grant funding. Those plans are currently in the works to add additional security/inmate cameras (note; there currently are some 9 cameras dedicated to just the jail and sheriff’s office, the courthouse has their own numerous cameras as well). Currently the sheriff’s office has a public address system and an intercom system; there is a separate intercom system for the jail. Each of these systems is analog and is past their serviceable use and finding parts for repairs are ever difficult or not available. This includes the jail door locks control panel. It should be up-graded to a modern touch screen operation as is becoming the common norm in the industry. The door locks for the general sheriff’s office main areas are obsolete and were originally designed for use on cabinets, not office security doors. We have great difficulty finding repair parts. A modern electronic, possibly biometric/finger print recognition, system would be state of the art such as the courts have recently obtained for their offices. The goal and plan is to use available grant funds to improve the jail video camera system, including in each cell, to improve the locks system as well as the jail doors control/operations panel to a touch screen. Also recently added to the main sheriff’s office are area signage and security door viewing holes as needed.

a. Radio Antenna Towers. Currently no plans/funds to modify, has not been a problem. Signage of “Restricted Area-No Public Access” recently erected for rear of substation. b. Courthouse/jail Air System. Currently no plans/funds to modify, has not been a problem. c. Courthouse/jail & Substation Electrical and Generators. Currently no plans/funds to modify, has not been a problem. d. Courthouse Heating Oil. Currently no plans/funds to modify, has not been a problem. e. Substation Propane Tanks. Currently no plans/funds to modify, has not been a problem. Signage of “Restricted Area-No Public Access” recently erected. f. Substation Interior Storage/Security. A security/monitoring system has recently been installed along with area signage and security door viewing hole as needed. g. Sheriff Vehicles Storage. Currently no plans/funds to modify, has not been a problem. Signage of “Restricted Area-No Public Access” recently erected at substation. Security monitoring systems are in place in both Downieville and Loyalton office areas.

Every year the Grand Jury cites this item and is correct in doing so. Currently the jail exterior sally-port (enclosed drive through secure area for the entering and exiting of prisoners by staff) is also utilized as an inmate outdoor “recreation area”. It does not meet the standards set by the State per Title 24 for jail building standards for that purpose. Inmates are offered to spend at minimum 2 hours per week in that fenced-in area, including a double secure area that allows direct fresh air and daylight at the upper doorway of the jail. Inmates are classified whether they are eligible to be in these areas under supervision of sheriff’s office staff, including the by the sheriff who’s individual work office over-looks the area. Inmates determined ineligible to be in either the internal double secure outside area of in the main outside area are eligible for transfer to one of two local jails with which Sierra County maintains inmate holding agreements. They are in Nevada and Plumas Counties which are full Type II county jails. The Sierra County Jail was built as a Type I facility but has always operated as a Type II with the understanding that the option exists for transfer to a Type II jail if necessary. An up-grade to the sally- port/recreation area would bring our jail into full compliance with Title 24 for jail building standards. Non compliance is not illegal, however it exposes the county to civil liability in the event of a negative event. There has not been funding available to up-grade and improve the sally-port security until recently. Currently there are plans to use the new A.B. Realignment funds to bring the jail structure into full compliance with Title 24. Already architect plans have been drawn and improvements are pending 3 Honorable John P. Kennelly Response to the 2012/2013 Grand Jury Report adoption by the county of the full A.B. Operational Plans which include the jail improvement costs in that budget. These improvements are pending and are essentially imminent. a. Sally-Port Fence 3’ Short: Pending B.O.S. adoption of A.B. 109 plans and budget. b. Automatic Lock System: Unclear what this refers too, perhaps pending security up-grades via planned Homeland Security funds. c. No Top Fence: Not required, however possibly pending B.O.S. adoption of A.B. 109 plans and budget. d. Prisoner Access Electrical Boxes: These metal boxes are locked and secure, however while not required may be pending B.O.S. adoption of A.B. 109 plans and budget. e. County Administrative Windows: while not required may be pending B.O.S. adoption of A.B. 109 plans and budget. f. Roofline Not Fenced: pending B.O.S. adoption of A.B. 109 plans and budget.

The budget estimate mentioned by Auditor Van Maddox of closing the jail is just that an estimate. The auditor-controller had been credited with stating the average Sierra County jail inmate population is 2 inmates, ostensibly as having been told this by the sheriff’s office. This is incorrect. The average daily jail population in my experience over the past 23 years is 5 to 6 inmates held in our jail and 2 concurrently in paid contract jail housing, such as Nevada County at any one time. I have seen the jail empty on 2 occasions for a only a matter of days and 12 inmates locally held for a few days. Only a few years ago there was a local jail population of 10 for months, on top of the usual 1 to 3 inmates housed at a contract jail on behalf of Sierra County. The local jail population can swing wildly at any time and it is foreseeable that the jail inmate population will increase, possibly substantially, in the future pending the economy up- turn as well as the housing of state prison inmates per A.B. 109 and “flash incarcerations”. It has been made clear that if the current jail is ever closed, even temporarily, it would be cost prohibitive to ever re- open it due to the then required tremendous capital improvements that would be required to met the then “current” standards. Once the sally-port/recreation area enclosure is improved, our current jail will meet the Title 24 requirements; since we are currently required to adhere to the Title 24 regulations at the time of the last re-model in the early 1990’s. Predicting the County population, and therefore needs of jail capacity even 20 to 50 years off is impossible. Once this jail is closed, it will be certainly forever lost. There is also no guarantee of future agreements of other county jails to accept and hold our inmates, nor at what cost will be required. There are many factors to be calculated and the sheriff’s office is not aware of how the auditor came to that specific estimate. Perhaps the most basic and core function of local governance is public safety, and therefore the operations of an autonomous/sovereign local county sheriff’s office, dispatch and jail. To outsource any of these operations would have enormous and wide- spread impact on the local economy, the providing of law enforcement services and quality of life. Currently there is a plan to review the total cost of jail and dispatch operations and the actual affect on the community if outsourced. That review is available from an independent source, funded via A.B. 109 funds, by this October. The final decision will be left to the Board of Supervisors.

The issue of jail staffing minimum levels also is being reviewed by the independent party. All available options are under review, including using additional technology to enhance operations (such as semi-remote auxiliary options). Title 15, Section 1027 requires to the effect an officer be immediately available for the jail, however does not state how many officers be “on-duty”.