Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates whether east entrance should use security checkpoint after task force recommendation and sheriffs letter
Summary
A task force recommended routing all east-entrance visitors through a security checkpoint, but the sheriffs letter advised retaining the countys existing policy that reserves checkpoint screening for Justice Center users; staff said the railing and layout leave an open gap and that further Public Safety Committee review is likely.
The Building Project Committee spent significant time on a disagreement about whether visitors entering the county building through the east entrance should be routinely screened.
Staff summarized a task force recommendation that everyone entering through the east entrance go through the security checkpoint. The presenter said the task force met several times and "their latest recommendation was that everybody that that would come through the east entrance would go through system security checkpoint going forward." He added that after the task-force recommendation the sheriff submitted a letter with a different view and is ultimately responsible for security in the Justice Center.
The sheriffs position, as relayed by staff, would keep the countys current policy in place: people entering the Justice Center would continue to be screened, while those entering the adjacent county building would not routinely pass through the same screening. Staff noted that the installed railing currently contains a 7-to-8-foot gap that allows people to enter without being screened, and that reinstalling or changing railing configuration would be "an easy fix" and could be done quickly if the board chose to do so.
Supervisor Schwab asked whether the question should return to the Public Safety Committee for final recommendation; staff recommended that, given the sheriffs letter, the Public Safety Committee is an appropriate venue for any final policy action. Staff also said operational matters (staffing the checkpoint, hours, and contractor installation of railing) would be the main cost drivers if the board opted to require screening for the county building entrance.
No formal policy change occurred at the meeting. Staff said they expect to meet internally in the coming weeks to clarify the recommendation and prepare materials for Public Safety Committee review, which the presenter estimated would not meet again for about a month.
The committee was offered tours of the east lobby to view the railing configuration and how the checkpoint is functioning in practice; staff encouraged committee members to coordinate individually or as a posted meeting if multiple members attend together.
