Sierra County 2012-2013 - California Grand Jury Reports

F1: There is a continuing long-term roof water leakage problem in the county jail. 8

F2: The electrical power has been turned off in the holding area 9 because of water damage. 10

F3: As a result of long-term water damage, mold exists in the holding area. 11

F4: The elevator structure has severe damage from the effects of both the water damage 12 and winter freeze/thaw cycles. It is understood that the water leakage originates at the 13 elevator structure. Damage increases each year. Expenses for repairs appear to increase 14 exponentially. 15 16

F5: There are jail security system improvements that have not 25 been completed. These improvements were started with grant money but were 26 not completed because costs exceeded the grant monies received. The following 27 systems have not been completed: 28 a. Intercom system 29 b. Video monitoring system 30 c. Remote control lock system 31 32

F6: The following are not protected from tampering and/or contamination: 3 4 Radio communication towers have no anti-climb 5 prevention devices. (Neither the tower at the 6 courthouse/jail in Downieville nor the Loyalton sub- 7 station is protected) 8 9 b. The courthouse/jail air circulation system. 10 11 c. The courthouse/jail facility in Downieville, and the 12 Loyalton sub-station external electrical service panels 13 and emergency generators. 14 15 d. Fuel oil is not security fenced. 16 17 e. The Loyalton sub-station propane tanks are not security 18 fence protected and the control covers are not locked. 19 20 f. The Loyalton sub-station has confidential records, specialized equipment, 21 weapons and munitions stored on site. The building is not protected to a level 22 sufficient for this type of storage. 23 24 g. Sheriff vehicles storage security is lax. In both Downieville and Loyalton 25 vehicles are parked in an area open to the public. 26 27

F7: Sally port/exercise area at county jail in Downieville. 4 5 California Title 24, Section 1231.2.10 mandates that prisoners have an outdoor exercise 6 area. The regulations dictate square footage, fence height, lock system, top of fence 7 containment and minimum hours per week for outside exercise. 8 9 The outdoor area at Downville Jail fails to meet any of these requirements. Also this 10 facility is located close to a Downieville residential area. During our inspection we could 11 hear children playing in the nearby neighborhood. The deficiencies with the sally 12 port/exercise area place the general public and the county administrative personnel at 13 unacceptable risk. 14 15 Deficiencies noted: 16 17 a. The sally port fence height is 12 feet. The state 18 requirement is 15 feet. 19 20 b. There is no automatic lock system. 21 22 c. There is no top fence containment. 23 24 d. Prisoners have access to the courthouse's main electrical service boxes. 25 26 e. The County's administrative office windows are open to 27 the prisoners exercise area with no security screening. 28 29 f. The building roofline has no fencing. 30 31 32

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Board of Supervisors must: 30 31 Establish a standing committee consisting of a County Supervisor, the County 32 Sheriff, and a member of the Roads and Transportation Department to: 33 34 Prioritize completion of security structures. 1. 35 36 2. Identify potential grant funding. 37 38 3. Supervise and direct grant-funding implementation. 5 7 Review of Jail and Law Enforcement Facilities FINDINGS: 1 2 3 F7 Sally port/exercise area at county jail in Downieville. 4 5 California Title 24, Section 1231.2.10 mandates that prisoners have an outdoor exercise 6 area. The regulations dictate square footage, fence height, lock system, top of fence 7 containment and minimum hours per week for outside exercise. 8 9 The outdoor area at Downville Jail fails to meet any of these requirements. Also this 10 facility is located close to a Downieville residential area. During our inspection we could 11 hear children playing in the nearby neighborhood. The deficiencies with the sally 12 port/exercise area place the general public and the county administrative personnel at 13 unacceptable risk. 14 15 Deficiencies noted: 16 17 a. The sally port fence height is 12 feet. The state 18 requirement is 15 feet. 19 20 b. There is no automatic lock system. 21 22 c. There is no top fence containment. 23 24 d. Prisoners have access to the courthouse's main electrical service boxes. 25 26 e. The County's administrative office windows are open to 27 the prisoners exercise area with no security screening. 28 29 f. The building roofline has no fencing. 30 31 32 Recommendation 33 34 These are long standing deficiencies that have been reported to the Board of

F9: The jail is funded by the state, some state grants, and the Sierra County general fund 3 as budgeted by the Sierra County Board of Supervisors. 4 5

F10: California mandates the systems, facility, required training and manpower levels. However 6 this is an unfunded mandate. Ongoing operations are the responsibility of the county. 7 8

F11: The sally port does not meet California state minimum requirements. The estimated cost to 9 bring the sally port into compliance is $70,000/$90,000 dollars. 10 11

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Board of Supervisors must: 30 31 Establish a standing committee consisting of a County Supervisor, the County 32 Sheriff, and a member of the Roads and Transportation Department to: 33 34 Prioritize completion of security structures. 1. 35 36 2. Identify potential grant funding. 37 38 3. Supervise and direct grant-funding implementation. 5 7 Review of Jail and Law Enforcement Facilities FINDINGS: 1 2 3 F7 Sally port/exercise area at county jail in Downieville. 4 5 California Title 24, Section 1231.2.10 mandates that prisoners have an outdoor exercise 6 area. The regulations dictate square footage, fence height, lock system, top of fence 7 containment and minimum hours per week for outside exercise. 8 9 The outdoor area at Downville Jail fails to meet any of these requirements. Also this 10 facility is located close to a Downieville residential area. During our inspection we could 11 hear children playing in the nearby neighborhood. The deficiencies with the sally 12 port/exercise area place the general public and the county administrative personnel at 13 unacceptable risk. 14 15 Deficiencies noted: 16 17 a. The sally port fence height is 12 feet. The state 18 requirement is 15 feet. 19 20 b. There is no automatic lock system. 21 22 c. There is no top fence containment. 23 24 d. Prisoners have access to the courthouse's main electrical service boxes. 25 26 e. The County's administrative office windows are open to 27 the prisoners exercise area with no security screening. 28 29 f. The building roofline has no fencing. 30 31 32 Recommendation 33 34 These are long standing deficiencies that have been reported to the Board of

F12: California mandates two corrections officers on duty twenty four hours a day, seven days a 12 week. Sierra County provides the funds for this operation. 13 14

F13: Corrections officers are used in the administration of the department and for radio dispatch. 15 16

F14: When corrections officers are not available to meet the two person, twenty four hour, seven 17 day per week state mandate, deputy sheriffs are used as corrections officers. When law 18 enforcement officers are used in this manner, the patrol, investigative and protection functions of 19 the Sheriff's Department are negatively impacted. 20 21

F15: The use of deputy sheriff officers as correction officers during the past three years is as 22 follows: 23 2010 ---- 78 shifts of 8 to 12 hours 24 2011 ----- 182 shifts of 8 to 12 hours 25 2012 ----- 46 shifts of 8 to 12 hours (Only partial year results) 26 (See attachment #1) 27 28

F16: Sierra County currently outsources some prisoners to Nevada County. Sierra County pays 29 an agreed upon cost per day for this service. 30 31

F17: California has four levels of county jail classifications and three short term holding 32 designations: 33 Type I: Holds inmates up to 96 hours ٠ 34 Type II: Holds inmates pending arraignment, during trial, and upon sentencing. Type III: Holds only convicted, sentenced inmates. Type IV: A work furlough facility. Temporary holding facility: Holds inmates up to 24 hours. Lockup: Locked room or secure enclosure under the control of a peace officer or 39 custodial officer—this is primarily for the temporary confinement of those Review of Jail and Law Enforcement Facilities 1 Court holding facilities are a state responsibly, not subject to county funding. 2 3

F18: The Sierra County Jail was constructed as a Type I facility. However, inmates can sign a 96 hour waiver and be held in this facility for longer periods. The State of California, thus treats 4 5 the Sierra County Jail as a Type II facility. 6 7 F 19 The Hon. Van Maddox, Sierra County Auditor, has done a preliminary cost analysis of 8 closing the jail and contracting for jailing prisoners. He has projected an annual savings to the 9 county in excess of $250,000 dollars annually. 10 (See attachment #2) 11 F 20 As of June 4, 2013 it was reported to us that the State of California has now agreed to allow 12 the Sierra County Jail to have only one corrections officer on duty during the night hours. This 13 will reduce the jail costs significantly and should be taken into consideration in any decision. 14 15 16

F19: The Hon. Van Maddox, Sierra County Auditor, has done a preliminary cost analysis of 8 closing the jail and contracting for jailing prisoners. He has projected an annual savings to the 9 county in excess of $250,000 dollars annually. 10 (See attachment #2) 11

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: 35 Supervisors by prior Grand Juries. This is a public safety issue that must be rectified for 36 the protection of county residents. Review of Jail and Law Enforcement Facilities 1 2 F9 The jail is funded by the state, some state grants, and the Sierra County general fund 3 as budgeted by the Sierra County Board of Supervisors. 4 5 F10 California mandates the systems, facility, required training and manpower levels. However 6 this is an unfunded mandate. Ongoing operations are the responsibility of the county. 7 8 F11 The sally port does not meet California state minimum requirements. The estimated cost to 9 bring the sally port into compliance is $70,000/$90,000 dollars. 10 11 F12 California mandates two corrections officers on duty twenty four hours a day, seven days a 12 week. Sierra County provides the funds for this operation. 13 14 F13 Corrections officers are used in the administration of the department and for radio dispatch. 15 16 F14 When corrections officers are not available to meet the two person, twenty four hour, seven 17 day per week state mandate, deputy sheriffs are used as corrections officers. When law 18 enforcement officers are used in this manner, the patrol, investigative and protection functions of 19 the Sheriff's Department are negatively impacted. 20 21 F15 The use of deputy sheriff officers as correction officers during the past three years is as 22 follows: 23 2010 ---- 78 shifts of 8 to 12 hours 24 2011 ----- 182 shifts of 8 to 12 hours 25 2012 ----- 46 shifts of 8 to 12 hours (Only partial year results) 26 (See attachment #1) 27 28 F16 Sierra County currently outsources some prisoners to Nevada County. Sierra County pays 29 an agreed upon cost per day for this service. 30 31 F17 California has four levels of county jail classifications and three short term holding 32 designations: 33 Type I: Holds inmates up to 96 hours ٠ 34 Type II: Holds inmates pending arraignment, during trial, and upon sentencing. Type III: Holds only convicted, sentenced inmates. Type IV: A work furlough facility. Temporary holding facility: Holds inmates up to 24 hours. Lockup: Locked room or secure enclosure under the control of a peace officer or 39 custodial officer—this is primarily for the temporary confinement of those Review of Jail and Law Enforcement Facilities 1 Court holding facilities are a state responsibly, not subject to county funding. 2 3 F18 The Sierra County Jail was constructed as a Type I facility. However, inmates can sign a 96 hour waiver and be held in this facility for longer periods. The State of California, thus treats 4 5 the Sierra County Jail as a Type II facility. 6 7 F 19 The Hon. Van Maddox, Sierra County Auditor, has done a preliminary cost analysis of 8 closing the jail and contracting for jailing prisoners. He has projected an annual savings to the 9 county in excess of $250,000 dollars annually. 10 (See attachment #2) 11 F 20 As of June 4, 2013 it was reported to us that the State of California has now agreed to allow 12 the Sierra County Jail to have only one corrections officer on duty during the night hours. This 13 will reduce the jail costs significantly and should be taken into consideration in any decision. 14 15 16 RECOMMENDATIONS: 17 18 R7-19 The Sierra County Board of Supervisors must: 19 20 1. Direct staff to prepare an in-depth cost analysis comparing the cost of closing the jail vs. 21 maintaining the status quo. 22 23 2. Hold public hearings within the county to obtain public input into the concept of closing the 24 jail. 25 26 3. Act on the information gained as a result of these activities to do what is best for Sierra County. 27 28 29 30 31 REQUEST FOR RESPONSES 32 33 Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the grand jury requests responses as follows: 34 35 From the following individuals: 36 37 Auditor, The Hon. Van Maddox 38 Sheriff, The Hon. John Evans 39 Mr. Tim Beals Review of Jail and Law Enforcement Facilities The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of -1 . . . . . the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting 2 3 requirements of the Brown Act. 4 - Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal 5 Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any Deputy Deputy Deputy Totals 1068 1114 740 8 834 9 756 8 922 182 Ā ΑH ΑÏ 46 List shows shifts of dispatch/ail coverage done by deputy sheriffs (reserves and regulars), as well as corrections-communications officers (full-time and part-time), per month for years 2010, 2011 & 2012 years. Note; the c generally 12 hours long, however there also are 8 hours long shifts usually 12 to 15 times per month. There has been a general rise in C/O shift over the 3 years de to efforts to have 2 C/Os on-duty at all times. The shift oiled on Wed, 27 Feb. 2013 by Sheriff John Evans per 2012-2013 Grand Jury request by reviewing past schedules. December Deputy Deputy Deputy 9 8 9 ٩ ₹ 73 Ŧ 13 89 88 69 12 61 83 17 November Deputy Deputy Deputy 36 8 0/2 Ā 23 75 ΑII 84 Ā 86 12 74 71 October Deputy Deputy Deputy 000 8 0/0 F 99 72 All 33 Ŧ 78 77 85 4 September Deputy Deputy Deputy10 C/0 C_{0} 200 All All Ŧ 65 99 56 4 2 0 ATTACHIMENT#1 Deputy August Deputy Deputy 8 2 9 9 99 A ¥ Ψ 29 93 67 93 Deputy Deputy Deputy 82 0/2 8 65 19 89 ₹ All87 Ψ 96 96 0 July Deputy Deputy Deputy 8 200 9 2 Ŧ F A 95 95 8 30 4 June 71 0 Deputy Deputy Deputy 108 9 108 8 9 F 99 62 All92 Ψ 15 77 May C Deputy Deputy9 Deputy All 76 C/067 20 8 111 April All62 48 ΑII 111 14 0 Deputy Deputy Deputy March 9 C/O 9 ٩ 18 63 Ŧ 63 All 8 8 81 S 0 T,0. training of new hires. February Deputy Deputy Deputy 0/2 9 C/O 15 ٩ 43 ΑII 75 12 63 All 28 0 11 11 Information com January Deputy Deputy14 Deputy 9 8 9 ΑII 65 Ŧ 4 49,011 Savings 250,856 Savings Sheriff told me that in 2011/12 averaged two inmates per day. Calender year 2012 the Sheriff's Department shows 5 average inmates, 20,000 Cost in Sheriff's Budget 114,295 S&S20,000 Cost in Sheriff's Budget 置 Ħ 35,000 Extra Help453,026 7FTE 35,000 Extra Help our Jail & Dispatch Cost of operating 453,026 7FTE 114,295 S&S this includes those in Nevada County jail. They estimated 3 of those where in Sierra County's jail.Sheriff also said dispatch handles 2200 max. calls annually Total Cost 622,321 Total Cost 622,321 288,350 Incarcerations125,000 Dispatch Contract78,000 Transportation81,959 1 FTEs Secretary 125,000 Dispatch Contract78,000 Transportation81,959 1 FTEs Secretary 79 86,505 Incarcerations Total Cost 573,309 371,464 62 365 1095 9 3650 365 က Cost of outsourcing Jail and Dispatch services Cost Inmates Total Daily rate Daily rate days / yr. Inmates days / yr. total yrs. total yrs. ATTACHMENT #2 The Building Department and the Law SIERRA COUNTY FOSTERS A DISRESPECT OF THE LAW 1 2 3 4 SUMMARY 5 There has developed in Sierra County an unhealthy disrespect for the law surrounding 6 enforcement of the Building Codes. This unfortunately results from the lack of 7 enforcement of the building code violations. Budget cuts have contributed to this lack of 8 enforcement but are not the only reasons for this breakdown in the rule of law. Failure to 9 have a well defined policy and procedure and adherence to the Building Codes have 10 contributed to this problem as well. BACKGROUND 11 12 Sierra County has made some decisions in the past that have resulted in two levels of law 13 enforcement as regards the Building Code adopted by the County. The law abiding 14 citizens are trying to comply with the Building Codes of Sierra County. At the same time 15 they see others that are ignoring and even flaunting the Building Codes and getting away 16 with the violations and no sanctions for violating the law. This breeds contempt of the 17 law which is not good! There are complete houses that have been erected and the people 18 who built them living in those houses without suffering any penalties for this flagrant 19 violation of the Building Code. APPROACH 20 21 We received many complaints regarding the lack of the County exercising its power to 22 stop and sanction people for flagrantly violating the County Building Codes. DISCUSSION 23 24 In an effort to make it possible for people to build homes in Sierra County time has been 25 allowed so persons can build as they are able to do so. Some people live in other areas 26 and are trying to build vacation or retirement homes. Others need time to accumulate 27 resources to build their home. Taking into consideration the weather constraints and the 28 remoteness of Sierra County, the County has relaxed the time tables that are prescribed in 29 the Uniform Building Code. This has allowed people to spend years constructing homes 30 or even doing remodeling and/or additions to existing homes. This relaxation is the result 31 of decisions by the Sierra County Board of Supervisors to allow it. By means of comparison, the Uniform Building Code has strict timelines. After issuance of a building permit, the permit holder has 180 days to start work and if no inspection is 33 The Building Department and the Law 1 The problem arises because the county building department has not instituted policies and 2 procedures that allow for the following of permits. It is difficult for the staff to determine 3 where builders are in the process which culminates with a final inspection and the 4 issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. As a result, permits are on the books somewhere that have never been finalized. This 6 results in houses that may not comply with the Uniform Building Code and thus could be 7 unsafe putting the life and safety of the residents of those houses at risk. The County issues approximately 100 permits per year and after a few years many 9 permits fall through the cracks and are never completed. The next problem that arises is the construction of structures without permits or 11 violations of code that may have a STOP WORK NOTICE (Red Tagged) issued. Again 12 the County Building Department does not have a policy and procedure to address what 13 happens after these issues are noted. This is really where a significant problem arises. We have citizens that are abiding with 15 the law and going through the process of paying for permits and building according to the 16 codes. Then we have scofflaws that are building in some cases complete homes without 17 obtaining the required permits and paying the fees. This is breeding contempt for the law 18 and of the County of Sierra for not imposing the law equally on all the people of Sierra 19 County. It continues to irritate the people who live by the law on a daily basis as they 20 drive by these illegal structures. As to this problem the County has two options: 22 1. Uniformly enforce the building codes or 23 2. Abandon the pretense of having a building code for structures in Sierra 24 County. Common sense would say that option #1 should be the course that the County should 26 pursue. The County through the Board of Supervisors can make exceptions to the building code 28 for Sierra County by adopting the Uniform Building Code with certain exceptions. Many 29 Cities and Counties do this every time a new code is issued. We did not research whether 30 the County has or has not done this. We were able to determine that the Building Department has started pursuing the process The Building Department and the Law 1 F1. The County needs to make the decision to promulgate policies and procedures to 2 maintain an efficient method to follow all building permits. This is needed to 3 assure that all building permits are finalized and Certificates of Occupancy are 4 issued. There must be a guarantee that the buildings in Sierra County comply with 5 the Building Codes at the time of completion. F2. The County needs to develop policies and procedures in conjunction with the 7 District Attorney to enforce compliance with the building codes and to exercise the 8 sanctions available to the County so as to make compliance a priority. Ultimately, 9 if a landowner or leaseholder fails to comply, the county must have the structure 10 destroyed at the expense of the landowner. 11 12 RECOMMENDATIONS 13 R1. There are inexpensive software options to efficiently follow the permit process from 14 issuance to completion and to issue reports of outstanding permits. The use of the 15 software and development of the policies and procedures to implement a method to 16 track all permits should be a high priority. It is recommended that ZP Systems or 17 Permit-LV could help address this issue and the cost could be covered by an 18 additional fee of $6.00 to $10.00 per building permit application. Please see 19

F20: As of June 4, 2013 it was reported to us that the State of California has now agreed to allow 12 the Sierra County Jail to have only one corrections officer on duty during the night hours. This 13 will reduce the jail costs significantly and should be taken into consideration in any decision. 14 15 16 RECOMMENDATIONS: 17 18 R7-19 The Sierra County Board of Supervisors must: 19 20 1. Direct staff to prepare an in-depth cost analysis comparing the cost of closing the jail vs. 21 maintaining the status quo. 22 23 2. Hold public hearings within the county to obtain public input into the concept of closing the 24 jail. 25 26 3. Act on the information gained as a result of these activities to do what is best for Sierra County. 27 28 29 30 31 REQUEST FOR RESPONSES 32 33 Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the grand jury requests responses as follows: 34 35 From the following individuals: 36 37 Auditor, The Hon. Van Maddox 38 Sheriff, The Hon. John Evans 39 Mr. Tim Beals Review of Jail and Law Enforcement Facilities The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of -1 . . . . . the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting 2 3 requirements of the Brown Act. 4 - Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal 5 Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any Deputy Deputy Deputy Totals 1068 1114 740 8 834 9 756 8 922 182 Ā ΑH ΑÏ 46 List shows shifts of dispatch/ail coverage done by deputy sheriffs (reserves and regulars), as well as corrections-communications officers (full-time and part-time), per month for years 2010, 2011 & 2012 years. Note; the c generally 12 hours long, however there also are 8 hours long shifts usually 12 to 15 times per month. There has been a general rise in C/O shift over the 3 years de to efforts to have 2 C/Os on-duty at all times. The shift oiled on Wed, 27 Feb. 2013 by Sheriff John Evans per 2012-2013 Grand Jury request by reviewing past schedules. December Deputy Deputy Deputy 9 8 9 ٩ ₹ 73 Ŧ 13 89 88 69 12 61 83 17 November Deputy Deputy Deputy 36 8 0/2 Ā 23 75 ΑII 84 Ā 86 12 74 71 October Deputy Deputy Deputy 000 8 0/0

F99: 72 All 33 Ŧ 78 77 85 4 September Deputy Deputy Deputy10 C/0 C_{0} 200 All All Ŧ 65 99 56 4 2 0 ATTACHIMENT#1 Deputy August Deputy Deputy 8 2 9 9 99 A ¥ Ψ 29 93 67 93 Deputy Deputy Deputy 82 0/2 8 65 19 89 ₹ All87 Ψ 96 96 0 July Deputy Deputy Deputy 8 200 9 2 Ŧ F A 95 95 8 30 4 June 71 0 Deputy Deputy Deputy 108 9 108 8 9

2012-2013

Additional documents