City, County Meet Again on Jail Crowding, Set Up Task Force

Exactly two years ago, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the San Diego City Council met to discuss jail crowding. All agreed it was a serious problem that needed immediate attention.

On Thursday, the two bodies held another joint meeting, and jail crowding was again on the agenda. Once again, all agreed it is a serious problem that needs immediate attention. This time, they also decided to set up a special task force to study ways to finance the new jails and courts that are needed to alleviate the longstanding problem.

In May, 1987, the county’s jails held 3,992 inmates. As of April 17, they held 4,849 prisoners--202% of their official capacity. And, by the time the supervisors and the council meet again in late summer, the jail population, growing by 13% annually, probably will have topped 5,000.

Although frustrated by the lack of concrete action, Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Susan Golding, who had gone into the meeting hoping for a commitment from the city to share the cost of building and operating jails and courts, argued afterward that Thursday’s session “accomplished a lot more than just some more talk.”

“We put on the table the disagreements and possible agreements on financing and sites,” Golding said. “The fact that they’ve been aired . . . was a very positive step.”

Similarly, City Councilman Ed Struiksma said after the meeting that he detected progress, however incremental.

Referring to the fact that the council members and the supervisors sat at opposite sides of the hearing room, Struiksma said: “While the physical distance between our two tables was substantial, I perceived hands being extended across that distance, narrowing the gap. I think that spirit of cooperation is going to lead to specific action.”

At Thursday’s meeting, the board and the council had no difficulty agreeing on the seriousness of the twin problems of jail crowding and courtroom shortages, but found less common ground when it came to solving those problems--or, more particularly, how to pay for the answers.

Documenting the problems’ magnitude, Rich Robinson, director of the county’s Special Projects Office, told the legislators that, of 131,000 people arrested in the city last year, only 15,700 were jailed. Because of crowding, most people arrested on misdemeanor charges now are released rather than jailed pending arraignment, and many never appear in court. As a result, there are more than 567,000 outstanding warrants, worth $67 million in potential fines, in the county, Robinson said.

“Only the worst of the worst of our criminal element is confined in our jails,” Superior Court Judge Wayne Peterson told the meeting.

Robinson said the county estimates that, over the next decade, 17 jail and courthouse projects will be needed--costing $958 million to construct and $265 million a year to operate.

Proposition A, a half-cent sales tax narrowly approved by voters countywide last June, was expected to generate $1.6 billion over the next 10 years to help finance those expansions of the criminal justice system. However, a Riverside County Superior Court judge in March invalidated the sales tax, ruling that its 50.6% approval by local voters fell short of the two-thirds margin for new taxes mandated by Proposition 13, the landmark property-tax-cutting initiative approved statewide by voters in 1978.

With appeals of that decision expected to last up to two years, “interim strategies must be developed,” Robinson said.

That’s where Struiksma’s hands-across-the-room observation broke down.

“Courts and jails are regional facilities, not just county facilities,” Supervisor John MacDonald said, pressing the county’s case. “Every city contributes people who occupy jail space, people who are in the courts. It’s time for us to pool our resources rather than say, ‘It’s the county’s problem, it’s not ours.’ ”

If the council did not exactly say that jails and courts are the county’s concern, neither did it rush forward with checkbook open.

“Our general fund budget is $395 million for the city. . . . So, to give you two-thirds of our budget for (jail and court) operating costs, it’s not going to happen,” Mayor Maureen O’Connor said. “There’s not a city in this region that isn’t experiencing financial hardship. You’re going to need some kind of major new funding source to make this work.”

O’Connor did not think much of one new funding source suggested by Supervisor Brian Bilbray: the 94% the city gets from court cases’ fines and forfeitures, contrasted with the county’s 6%. When that division of the proceeds was developed, the city operated a local jail, a task long since assumed by the county.

“Mr. Bilbray, you’re very (quick) in attacking mayors and councils for not doing enough about this,” O’Connor snapped.

Later, Councilman Bob Filner quipped: “The supervisors have let us know, in none too subtle a fashion, that the ball’s in our court.” When no one reacted to the last word in his comment, Filner had to add: “ Court . That’s a pun.”

Series of Options

Finally, both sides turned their attention to suggestions about economic approaches to the problem. Struiksma, for example, suggested that a percentage of property taxes stemming from growth be earmarked for jails and courts.

Golding, meanwhile, ticked off a series of options recently reviewed by the supervisors:

- A utility users’ tax.

- Business license fees.

- New sales taxes.

- A joint powers agreement between the city and the county to finance construction and operation of downtown jails and courts.