HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04161996 - SD2 i
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .s..••t o�
FROM: Finance Committee '. � '�
Contra
DATE: April 16, 1996 �' �ainpW� ,off Costa
;. County
SUBJECT: Court Facility Security Planning and Funding °sr..coiiK�
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ACCEPT the report on Court Facility Security efforts currently underway and future plans.
2. REQUEST the Sheriff conduct a request for cost information from private security agencies
to provide entry screening for the Superior Courts and off hours court security.
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S):
On September 12, 1995, the Board of Supervisors referred a court security item to the Finance
Committee for review. The Finance Committee was to examine the planning efforts and funding
sources involved with court security. The item was part of an overall response by the Internal
Operations Committee to a Grand Jury report on the "Contra Costa County Criminal Justice System."
(See Attachment A)
Plannina Efforts
A Civic Center Court/Justice Facilities Master Plan Committee has been meeting monthly since
January 1996. Part of the charge of this committee is to "incorporate building security consistent with
the policies and funding priorities of the State Trial Court Funding Commission." The purpose and
scope of this committee is delineated in Attachment B, while the committee members are listed in
Attachment;Q. Several members of the committee have been invited to this committee meeting to
discuss current and future committee activities._
'CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: `YES SIGNATURE: `
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI TEE
—APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON p APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OTHER
Recommendati6n No. 2 is AMENDED and the Sheriff is additionally
REQUESTED to conduct a request for cost information from private
security agencies to provide building patrols in the downtown
Martinez civic area to ensure that county buildings are secure.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT -------- ► TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: ATTESTED p A r i l 16 , 1996
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF
cc: Sheriff's Dept. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Superior Court A UNTY;4 _COD ST O
Municipal Court
CAO-Facilities Planning
CAO-Justice Systems B
D.
Improved Security with Current Facilities
Each year, the Sheriffs Department requests funding from the state to improve courtroom security.
The Sheriffs Department conducts on-site surveys of each facility and prepares plans with cost
estimates. Attachment D presents the Sheriffs summary funding request to the Administrative Office
of the Courts for fiscal year 1996-97. A representative from the Sheriffs Department will attend this
Committee meeting to discuss security improvements, needs and funding requests.
Finance Committee Meeting
On April 1, 1996, the Committee took testimony from representatives of the Sheriffs Department,
Municipal and Superior Courts and the County Administrator's Office. The following major points
were made:
1. the state will probably not fund the Sheriffs court security proposal requesting $3
million in 1996-97 because funding for court security is not a high enough priority given
the state appropriations level for the Trial Courts;
2. Court security is an on-going process and security planning has been conducted in the
past (see attachment E); and
3. Superior Court entry screening and security during off hours are high priority needs.
The Committee concluded that a survey should be conducted to determine the cost of entry
screening and off hour security for the Superior Court and reconsider this matter when the survey is
complete.
2
a
r = ATTACHMENT A
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS s L,oC1If a S)>,
j Costa
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE :. —r.,
° County
DATE: September 12, 1995
zoi;a
StfBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE 1994-1995 GRAND JURY:
NO. 9507, "CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM"
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Adopt this report of our Committee as the Board of
Supervisors' response to the Report of the 1994-1995 Grand
Jury No. 9507, "Contra Costa County Criminal Justice System."
2. Retain this item as a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
The 1994-1995 Grand Jury filed the above report, which was reviewed
by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the
Internal Operations Committee. On August 7, 1995 our Committee met
to discuss the recommendations and review proposed responses. At
the conclusion of those discussions, we prepared this report
utilizing a format suggested by a former Grand Jury, which clearly
specifies: _
A. Whether the recommendation is accepted or adopted;
B. If the recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will
be responsible for implementation of a definite target date;
C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is
accepted but cannot be implemented within the calendar year;
and
D. The reason for not adopting a recommendation.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -YES SIGNATURE:
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_APPROVE -OTHER
MARK DeSAULNIER JEFF SMITH
SICNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED
Contact: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Superior Court Presiding Judge SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Grand Jury Foreperson
County Counsel
e%
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is not accepted.
B. The Board is committed to maintaining and operating all
facilities for all their occupants in a healthy and safe
manner and funds are allocated each year to do so.
MUNICIPAL/SUPERIOR COURT/POLICE HOLDING CELLS:
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1:
Within one hundred twenty (120) days, metal detectors be installed
and used at all public entrances to all Court Buildings .
Consider adopting one of the following alternatives:
1 . Supervisor DeSaulnier's recommendation:
RESPONSE:
A. - This recommendation is not accepted.
B. Court facilities have a much higher level of security than
other County public buildings with a potential for workplace
violence. There is currently in place in the courts a complex
system of bailiffs, internal security and emergency response
plans, including the use of a mobile metal detector screening
system, all under the aegis of the Sheriff' s Department.
Court building security is an eligible funding category of the
State Trial Court Funding Program, however, to date, the State
has not seen fit to provide money for this purpose despite
their assumption of control of court funding. Nonetheless,
the courts have applied for FY 1996/97 funds for building
security.
To provide permanent metal detector screening for the court
locations of this County, three Superior Court, five Municipal
Court and two Juvenile Court locations, would require a
general fund expenditure of at least $1 million for start-up
costs and $3.5 to $4 million a year for permanent operating
staff. These funds are simply not available. Reallocating
funds would require cuts in other essential County services
which, in turn, would jeopardize public safety. This would be
contrary to the Grand Jury's intention.
-4-
SP �--
This matter is referred to the Finance Committee to review
r security funding and to establish an advisory committee to
include the Courts, Sheriff, District Attorney, Public
Defender and Probation to prepare a long-range plan for court
secur`.ty and related costs and funding sources .
2 . Supervisor Rogers ' recommendation:
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is not accepted.
B. Court facilities have a much higher level of security than
other County public buildings with a potential for workplace
violence. There is currently in place in the courts a complex
system of bailiffs, internal security and emergency response
plans, including the use of a mobile metal detector screening
system, all under the aegis of the Sheriff's Department.
Court; building security is an eligible funding category of the
State Trial Court Funding Program, however, to date, the State
has not seen fit to provide money for this purpose despite
their assumption of control of court funding. Nonetheless,
the courts have applied for FY 1996/97 funds for building
security.
To provide permanent metal detector screening for the court
locations of this County, three Superior Court, five Municipal
Court and two Juvenile Court locations, would require a
general fund expenditure of at least $1 million for start-up
costs and $3 .5 to $4 million a year for permanent operating
staff . These funds are simply not available. Reallocating
funds would require cuts in other essential County services
which, in turn, would jeopardize public safety. This would be
contrary to the Grand Jury' s intention.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 :
Within 30 days, bring fire inspections up to date in all Court
facilities .
RESPONSE :
A. The recommendation is accepted.
B. All court facilities have been inspected by the State Fire
Marshal and/or the appropriate fire protection district. The
General Services Director is directed to obtain evidence of
inspections .
-5-
ATTACHMENT B ��
County Administrator (,/�,(/�� Board of Supervisors
"✓ `✓tetra Jini Rogers
Justice System Programs Costa ist District
651 Pine Street,10th Floor Jeff Smith
Martinez,California 94553.1290f 11 t�t 2nd District
o 1.1
(510)646-4855 Gayle Bishop
Phil Batchelor 3rd District
s e. t
+c
County Administrator ..• o„ hark [>esaalnxes
` t ti•' 4th District
Tom Tortakson
Vf j< Sth District
r� y
CIVIC CENTER COURT/JUSTICE FACILITIES
MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE
Meeting
Wednesday, February 21, 1996
8:00 - 9 : 00 a.m.
PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF LOCATION
10th Floor Conference Room
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Martinez
A G E N D A
Attachments
1 . Call to Order
2 . Report on Proposed Scope of Master Plan Tab A
and Recommended Actions -- George Roemer
3 . Report on Status of Phase I Projects -- Carol Chan
4 . Open Forum
5 . Next Meeting
6 . Adjournment
cc: Len LeTellier, Superior Court
Ken Torre, Municipal Court
Renee Goldstein, District Attorney' s Office
De Bell, County Administrator' s Office
Bob Hill, General Services-Architectural Division
Carol Chan, County Administrator's Office
Tab A
60• V_L_
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
DATE: February 12, 1996
TO: CIVIC CENTER COURT/JUSTICE FACILITIES
MA PLAN COMMITTEE
ROEMER
FROM: E q
S S
n oorr Deputy County Administrator
SUBJECT: PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SCOPE OF SERVICES AND RECOMMENDED
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
PURPOSE
To develop a long-range plan for the orderly development of the
Martinez Civic Center as the central County point for the
consolidation and/or coordination of the courts system in
accordance with the requirements of the State Judicial Council.
ASSUMPTIONS
1 . The consolidation and/or coordination of judicial and court
administration must proceed in an orderly, planned fashion in
order to comply with the requirements of Rule 991 of the State
Judicial Council.
2 . Additional judgeships approved for the County will tend to be
with the Superior Court.
3 . Recognize that multiple Municipal Court locations will
continue to exist and that All existing court facilities must
be utilized.
4 . Planning for additional court facilities or different
utilization of existing facilities must be done in a
coordinated fashion consistent with the operational needs of
related agencies such as the District Attorney, Public
Defender, Probation, Sheriff and private Bar.
5 . The Master Plan must be consistent with the Phase I Post-Fire
Reconstruction Plan already being implemented. (See attached)
eo iN
ELEMENTS OF MASTER PLAN
1 . Long-term projections regarding Superior Court workload and
need for additional courtrooms* in Martinez Civic Center
(recogn--,zing whatever redistribution of judicial workload
flows from approved judicial workload plans) .
2 . Appropriate uses for various Municipal Court facilities which
exist throughout the County.
3 . Impact of mandated judicial consolidation and coordination on
space requirements of related justice agencies. (Note that a
decision has been made to relocate the District Attorney and
Public Defender's Concord operations to Martinez in spaces
already identified. )
4 . Parking issues related to the future development of the
Martinez Civic Center as the central court complex of the
County. (Coordinate, as appropriate, with the planning being
done by the City of Martinez regarding the Intermoda-1 Project,
downtown planning and other issues affecting parking. )
5. Identify space available in Martinez Civic Center for
.consolidation of Municipal and Superior Court administration.
6 . Incorporate building security consistent with the policies and
funding priorities of the State Trial Court Funding Commission
into all Martinez Civic Center planning.
7 . Study feasibility of relocating three Family Law Departments
to the Lions Gate facility and consider impact on Board of
Supervisors ' approved plan for juvenile system Continuum of
Care.
8 . Explore options for creating additional courtrooms in the Bray
Court Building including relocation of the Law Library,
Superior Court Administration, and the Jury Assembly Room.
BUDGET
It is estimated the budget for the Master Plan can range from
between $20,000 to $60,000, depending upon the actual scope of
services negotiated with the architect as well as the extent of
input and data that can be provided by County staff.
TIME SCHEDULE
It is estimated that, again depending upon the exact scope of
services, it would take six to nine months from execution of
contract to complete the plan.
*Any new courtrooms will include appropriate audio-visual
facilities .
PROCEDURE
County staff would prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) which would
be submitted to an approved list of architects .
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1 . Discuss and amend, if desired, proposed scope of services and
authorize staff to develop and issue RFP.
2 . It is recommended that a Committee of County staff and Master
Plan Committee members be established to review the responses
to the RFP and to interview and select the architect.
PHASE I ELEMENTS OCTOBER 1995
1 Reconfigure the space that was previously occupied by the
County Clerk's court support staff in the most efficient and
flexible layout that can be determined at this time.
2 . Maintain the existing courtroom in the first floor of the old
courthouse to be utilized for Superior Court purposes .
3 . Move the Research Attorneys to Floor 3 .5 of the old courthouse
in order to maximize adjacencies with the Civil Court.
4 . Look at improving the security on the first floor of the old
courthouse by providing window treatment to help secure all
windows.
5 . Recognize that the old Jury Assembly Room will not provide
adequate space for an additional courtroom.
6 . Utilize the balance of the first floor of the old courthouse,
including space previously occupied by the Jury Assembly Room,
Research Attorneys, and computer operations to maximize the
functional integration of the Mt. Diablo Municipal Court and
County Clerk's staff.
7 . Utilize the first floor of 1111 Ward Street for current County
Clerk files that must remain close to the courts and court
administration staff.
8 . Convert the court annex space vacated by Mt. Diablo staff to
an additional courtroom.
9 . Remodel Lions Gate to not only provide space for Juvenile
Court referees, but also to provide an additional courtroom
to accommodate moving the Juvenile Court Judge from the Bray
Building.
10 . Utilize the resulting available courtroom in the Bray
Building, as well as the next courtroom to become available,
for Mt. Diablo criminal departments .
11 . Establish a Master Plan Committee consisting of members of
both Benches as well as members of the Justice System
Executive Council to examine items such as security,
conversion of the Law Library to courtrooms, methodology and
finance plan for establishing additional courtrooms , etc.
12 . Reduce storage space required for court records by pursuing
innovative electronic approaches to data storage and
retrieval .
ATTACHMENT C
CIVIC CENTER COURT/JUSTICE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE
A. Justice System Coordination Committee
Superior Court John Minney, Presiding Judge
Municipal Court Harlan Grossman, President
Municipal Court Judges Association
District Attorney Gary Yancey
Public Defender Charles James
Sheriff-Coroner Warren Rupf
Probation Department Terry Starr
B. Others
Mt. Diablo Court William Kolin, Presiding Judge
Martinez Marcia Raines, Asst. City Manager
Auditor-Controller Ken Corcoran
Assessor Bob Nash
Bar Association Michael Markowitz
County Staff
George Roemer, County Administrator' s Office
De Bell, County Administrator' s Office
Bob Hill, General Services-Architectural Division
Len LeTellier, Superior Court
Ken Torre, Municipal Court
Ren6e Goldstein, District Attorney' s Office
( 1/18/96 )
ATTACHMENT D
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF WARREN E. RUFF
Contra Costa County Sheriff S D=
Custody Services Bureau, Court Security Russell F. Pitkin
1000,Ward Street Undersheriff
Martinez, CA 94553-0039
(51.0)646-1596
Date: January 31, 1996
To: Russell F. Pitkin, Undersheriff
via: Commander L. D. Simmons
From: Captain Wm. Shin
via: Lieutenant M, Ilg 7
Subject: Superior Court a Municipal Courts Security Plans
Attached is the security plan for each courthouse located in Contra Costa County.
Security plans are updated annually and presented to the Judges' Oversight
Committee for review and comment.
Security plans for 1996 are being completed and will be presented to the Judges'
Oversight Committee on April 10, 1996. The methodology of each security plan
includes the following:
1 . Independent physical site survey
2. Interviews with Judges, Department Heads and support personnel
3. Review of existing policy procedures and protocol relating to courthouse
security, including evacuation and life safety plans.
Security plans for each court facility includes recommendations to improve the level
of security and establish the minimum staffing level.
Recommendations for improved security range from simple changes, at little or no
cost, to the acquisition of special security equipment.
A budget request (attached) was submitted to the Trial Court Commission for FY
1996-97, requesting dedicated funding for the implementation of weapons
screening and building alarm systems at each facility.
The Judges' Oversight Committee agrees the present staffing level of Court Security
personnel, during business hours, is adequate. The absence of security, after
business hours, and lack of building alarm systems at most facilities makes these
facilities vulnerable to acts of theft and vandalism.
1 remain optimistic that the Administrative Office of the Courts will approve the
necessary funding requested for the installation of weapons screening and building
alarm systems.
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Contra Costa County
Support Services Division
Court Security Bureau
815 Court Street
Martinez, CA
646 ,1596
Date: May 5, 1995
To: Administrative Office of the Courts
From: Lieutenant Mike 11g, Court Security Bureau
Subject: Attachment, Function 8 Incremental Expenditure Request -
FY 96-97 Trial Court Budget Development Package
The categories listed below contain estimated costs associated to implementation of entry
screening at two Superior Court buildings in Contra Costa County.
► Personnel Two (2) Deputy Sheriffs
Salaries and benefits $160,118.00
Three (3) Sheriff's Aides
Salaries and benefits $129,000.00
TOTAL $289,118.00
Support Service Equipment Maintenance and Warranty
TOTAL $ 10,000.00
► Architectural Design, Consultants
Bid Documents
Bid Process
Permits
Construction Management
Lobby Remodel
Cabling
Camera Installation
Alarm Installation
TOTAL S300,000.00
► Equipment (4) Magnetometers
Astrophysics Sentrie $ 16,000.00
(2) X-Ray Machines
Astrophysics
LineScan 15 100,000.00
(12) Cameras 18,000.00
Administrative Office of the Courts
May 5, 1995
Page 2
> Equipment
(continued) (4) Color Monitors 10,000.00
(2) Recorders 5,000.00
(2) Multimex 16,000.00
(8) Audible Alarms 16,000.00
(1) Intercom for
Handicap Access 4,000.00
(5) Portable Radios 5,000.00
Computer Software 40,000.00
TOTAL $230,000.00
GRAND TOTAL $829,118.00
ML:cb
SD,
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Contra Costa County
Support Services Division
Court Security Bureau
815 Court Street
Martinez, CA
646-1596
Date: May 2, 1995
To: Administrative Office of the Courts
From: Lieutenant Mike Ilg, Court Security Bureau
Subject: Attachment, Function 8 Incremental Expenditure Request -
FY 96-97 Trial Court Budget Development Package
The categories listed below contain estimated costs associated to implementation of entry
screening at Delta Municipal Court, Pittsburg, California.
► Personnel Deputy Sheriffs
Salaries, wages and benefits
TOTAL $240,177.00
► Support Service Maintenance and Warranty
TOTAL $ 5,000.00
► Construction Costs Both buildings, including remodel
(Attached) and electrical upgrade
TOTAL $100,000.00
► Equipment (1) Magnetometer $ 4,000.00
(1) X-Ray Machine 50,000.00
(4) Cameras 15,000.00
(1) Color Monitor 2,500.00
(1) Recorder 5,000.00
(1) Multimex 8,000.00
Computer Software 30,000.00
Alarms 12,000.00
Intercoms 5,000.00
(3) Radios 3,000.00
Signage 2,000.00
Stanchions Rope Barriers 2,000.00
TOTAL $138,500.00
GRAND TOTAL $483,677.00
ML:cb
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Contra Costa County
Support Services Division
Court Security Bureau
815 Court Street
Martinez, CA
646-1596
Date: May 2, 1995
To: Administrative Office of the Courts
From: Lieutenant Mike Ilg, Court Security Bureau
Subject: Attachment, Function 8 Incremental Expenditure Request -
FY 96-97 Trial Court Budget Development Package
The categories listed below contain estimated costs associated to implementation 'of entry
screening at Walnut Creek-Danville Municipal Court.
► Personnel Deputy Sheriffs
Salaries, wages and benefits
TOTAL $240,177.00
► Support Service Maintenance and Warranty. TOTAL $ 5,000.00
► Construction Costs Both buildings, including remodel
(Attached) and electrical upgrade
TOTAL $100,000.00
► Equipment (1) Magnetometer $ 4,000.00
(1) X-Ray Machine 50,000.00
(4) Cameras 15,000.00
(1) Color Monitor 2,500.00
(1) Recorder 5,000.00
(1) Multimex 8,000.00
Computer Software 30,000.00
Alarms 12,000.00
Intercoms 5,000.00
(3) Radios 3,000.00
Signage 2,000.00
Stanchions Rope Barriers 2,000.00
TOTAL $138,500.00
GRAND TOTAL $483,677.00
ML:cb
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Contra Costa County
Support Services Division
Cpurt Security Bureau
815 Court Street
Martinez, CA
646-1596
Date: May 2, 1995
To: Administrative Office of the Courts
From: Lieutenant Mike Ilg, Court Security Bureau
Subject: Attachment, Function 8 Incremental Expenditure Request -
FY 96-97 Trial Court Budget Development Package
The categories listed below contain estimated costs associated to implementation of entry
screening at Mt. Diablo Municipal Court, Concord, California.
► Personnel Deputy Sheriffs
Salaries, wages and benefits
TOTAL $320,236.00
► Support Service Maintenance and Warranty
TOTAL $ 20,000.00
► Construction Costs Both buildings, including remodel
(Attached) and electrical upgrade
TOTAL $100,000.00
► Equipment (4) Magnetometer $ 16,000.00
(4) X-Ray Machine 200,000.00
(4) Radios 4,000.00
Signage 5,000.00
Stanchions Rope Barriers 5,000.00
TOTAL $230,000.00
GRAND TOTAL $670,236.00
ML:cb
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Contra Costa County
Support Services Division
Court Security Bureau .
815 Court Street
Martinez, CA
646-1596
Date: May 2, 1995
To: Administrative Office of the Courts
From: Lieutenant Mike Ilg, Court Security Bureau
Subject: Attachment, Function 8 Incremental Expenditure Request -
FY 96-97 Trial Court Budget Development Package
The categories listed below contain estimated costs associated to implementation of entry
screening at Bay Municipal Court, Richmond, California.
► Personnel Deputy Sheriffs
Salaries, wages and benefits
TOTAL $320,236.00
► Support Service Maintenance and Warranty
TOTAL $ 5,000.00
► Construction Costs Both buildings, including remodel
(Attached) and electrical upgrade
TOTAL $100,000.00
► Equipment (2) Magnetometer $ 8,000.00
(1) X-Ray Machine 50,000.00
(4) Cameras 15,000.00
(1) Color Monitor 2,500.00
(1) Recorder 5,000.00
(1) Multimex 8,000.00
Computer Software 30,000.00
Alarms 15,000.00
Intercoms 5,000.00
(4) Radios 4,000.00
Signage 2,000.00
Stanchions Rope Barriers 2,000.00
TOTAL $146,500.00
GRAND TOTAL $571,736.00
ML:cb
Attachment E
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C O N T R A C 0 S T A C O U N T Y
Administration Building
Martinez, California, 11th Floor
DATE: April 8, 1996
TO: Tony Enea
FROM: C4V't-ean
SUBJECT: Courthouse Security (725 Court St. )
During 1993 meetings between Superior Court, Sheriff Court
Security, General Services Architectural and our office were held
in regards to the issue of providing perimeter security at the 725
Court St.Courthouse . We agreed on a plan to implement perimeter
security. In December, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved
advertisements for bids for security improvements and on January 4,
1994, approved award of a contract in the amount of $31, 500 . The
scope of this contract was to complete the necessary wiring and
construction for installation of the required security equipment at
the Courthouse. The plan required that all doors would be locked
except for the main Court St. entrance. At this location, the
Sheriff would have the entrance screening devices . The Sheriff
Court Security Division was responsible for determing the
necessary equipment .
During the period of January through June, 1994, the scope and
estimated costs of this project escalated so that the construction
cost climbed to an estimated at $70, 000, and equipment estimate was
$22, 500 . Even at this cost, there were still problems with the
project which centered around the inability to have only one point
of entry and exit . The Court Street entrance was the only one
large enough to accomodate entrance and exit at one point. However
due to the number of steps on the Court St. side, the disabled and
deliveries could not use this site. This then required that
another location, the Main St. entrance be available for this use.
This also meant additional staffing at this location.
Since the construction cost was now more than double the original
estimate and still would not address all the problems with the
project, we cancelled the original contract and full funding for
perimeter court security was included the Court' s Trial Court
Budget request. This item has been in the Court' s Trial Court
Funding Budget for the past two years and has never been funded by
the state.
cc: D. Bell
G. Roemer
M. Ilg, Sheriff Court Security
I