Yuba County supervisors, sheriff look into installing additional security cameras in jail
Officials somewhat agree with grand jury safety recommendations
The Yuba County grand jury’s report, issued in June, didn’t have a lot bad to say about anything.
But it did find there was an inadequate number of cameras inside the jail. Yuba County supervisors and the sheriff recently responded to the recommendation to install more cameras, somewhat agreeing with the finding, but saying there needs to be further analysis to see if it would be feasible.
The grand jury’s report was largely favorable for the entities and operations it investigated – other topics included Marysville’s medical marijuana permitting process, the Yubasutter Counties Veteran Service Office and how the county handled evacuations in 2017. The group’s investigation into the jail was largely positive as well, aside from the recommendation about the need for more cameras in the facility’s tower area.
The recommendation will not be implemented by the county, but could be in the near future, said Andy Vasquez, county supervisor, on behalf of the board.
“Current efforts to solicit proposals of new control panels in the jail will provide the ability to analyze the integration of additional cameras, if needed and determined necessary by the sheriff for the safety and security of staff and inmates,” Vasquez wrote in the county’s response.
During its investigation, the grand jury conducted two separate tours of the jail facility. During a tour of the newer portion of the jail – built in 1995 and housing both ICE detainees and the general inmate population – jury members noted that there was only one camera that monitors cell activity in each of the two towers overlooking the inmates.
“Installation of more cameras in the tower area would be extremely helpful, should be discussed by Board of Supervisors for addition to the 2018-2019 budget,” the grand jury recommended.
Yuba County Sheriff Steve Durfor said he agreed additional cameras would enhance monitoring capability, but research to determine the costs and installation of addition cameras would likely take the department beyond its available budget this year.
“That certainly does not preclude research and consideration of such a project,” Durfor said in his response.
The two towers, or control rooms, are monitored by one officer at a time throughout the day – each responsible for looking over three housing units. In addition to a single rotating camera focused into each housing unit, the supervising officer has the ability to observe the housing units through a large glass window – the primary method for monitoring – which together provide officers with a good field of view, he said.
Durfor said the sheriff’s office is looking into replacing its antiquated control panels used in the towers. A request for proposals to replace one or more of the control panels was recently released, he said, and that process should allow for a better understanding of how much it would cost to install more cameras.
“Although the addition of cameras is not within the scope of work for this RFP, it is essential that new control panels integrate and control all doors, intercoms and cameras,” Durfor said in his response. “This project will provide the opportunity to identify any potential expansion of cameras and estimate costs. We will use this information to consider the viability of adding cameras in the jail.”
Entities mentioned in the grand jury report are required to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are required within 90 days from any public agency, and 60 days from any elected county officer or agency head.