Orange County Grand Jury
• 1999-2000
Safety of County Employees and Visitors in County Buildings
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 9 findings
F1
The five smaller justice centers need improved security measures to better protect County employees (Table 7). A response to Finding 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Except for the Central Justice Center, there is no weapon screening in the twelve County buildings and justice centers included in this report. A response to Finding 2 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine short-term security improvements for the five smaller justice centers. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 2a. The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine long-term security improvements for the six justice centers. Even after the passage of AB233, the exterior security of justice centers is still a responsibility of the County (Rule 810). 2b. The Board of Supervisors should direct the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner to appoint a study team to develop a long-range plan to improve the security of employees and the public in County buildings (non-justice centers). These plans (2a and 2b) would address findings two through six. Specific actions would include: · Develop steps to improve security at all County buildings (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the possible use of the marshals assigned to courtroom duty to perimeter and entrance security at peak traffic periods in the five justice centers without weapons screening (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the increased use of surveillance cameras for entrance and perimeter security in the justice centers and most vulnerable County buildings (Finding 3). · Investigate steps to improve security in the Hall of Administration (Finding 5). · Explore the possibility of collecting data on weapons confiscated from visitors and those confiscated from employees at the Lamoreaux and the Central Justice Centers (Finding 6). · Determine if the County employees in the smaller justice centers need to be included in the weapon screening process. (Finding 6). A response to Recommendations 2a and 2b is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F3
There are entrance and perimeter surveillance cameras installed in only two of the twelve buildings selected for this study. A response to Finding 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine short-term security improvements for the five smaller justice centers. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 2a. The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine long-term security improvements for the six justice centers. Even after the passage of AB233, the exterior security of justice centers is still a responsibility of the County (Rule 810). 2b. The Board of Supervisors should direct the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner to appoint a study team to develop a long-range plan to improve the security of employees and the public in County buildings (non-justice centers). These plans (2a and 2b) would address findings two through six. Specific actions would include: · Develop steps to improve security at all County buildings (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the possible use of the marshals assigned to courtroom duty to perimeter and entrance security at peak traffic periods in the five justice centers without weapons screening (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the increased use of surveillance cameras for entrance and perimeter security in the justice centers and most vulnerable County buildings (Finding 3). · Investigate steps to improve security in the Hall of Administration (Finding 5). · Explore the possibility of collecting data on weapons confiscated from visitors and those confiscated from employees at the Lamoreaux and the Central Justice Centers (Finding 6). · Determine if the County employees in the smaller justice centers need to be included in the weapon screening process. (Finding 6). A response to Recommendations 2a and 2b is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F4
Five of the six justice centers (North, West, Harbor, South Main, and South Annex) have no deputies dedicated to entrance or perimeter security. A response to Finding 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 9
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Of the six County buildings included in this study, the Hall of Administration is the building with the greatest need for improved security for employees and visitors (Table 8). A response to Finding 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine short-term security improvements for the five smaller justice centers. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 2a. The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine long-term security improvements for the six justice centers. Even after the passage of AB233, the exterior security of justice centers is still a responsibility of the County (Rule 810). 2b. The Board of Supervisors should direct the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner to appoint a study team to develop a long-range plan to improve the security of employees and the public in County buildings (non-justice centers). These plans (2a and 2b) would address findings two through six. Specific actions would include: · Develop steps to improve security at all County buildings (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the possible use of the marshals assigned to courtroom duty to perimeter and entrance security at peak traffic periods in the five justice centers without weapons screening (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the increased use of surveillance cameras for entrance and perimeter security in the justice centers and most vulnerable County buildings (Finding 3). · Investigate steps to improve security in the Hall of Administration (Finding 5). · Explore the possibility of collecting data on weapons confiscated from visitors and those confiscated from employees at the Lamoreaux and the Central Justice Centers (Finding 6). · Determine if the County employees in the smaller justice centers need to be included in the weapon screening process. (Finding 6). A response to Recommendations 2a and 2b is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F6
There is no historical or current data that differentiates between those weapons confiscated from visitors and those confiscated from employees at the Lamoreaux Justice Center or the Central Justice Center. A response to Finding 6 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine short-term security improvements for the five smaller justice centers. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 2a. The Board of Supervisors should meet with the Superior Court to discuss and examine long-term security improvements for the six justice centers. Even after the passage of AB233, the exterior security of justice centers is still a responsibility of the County (Rule 810). 2b. The Board of Supervisors should direct the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner to appoint a study team to develop a long-range plan to improve the security of employees and the public in County buildings (non-justice centers). These plans (2a and 2b) would address findings two through six. Specific actions would include: · Develop steps to improve security at all County buildings (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the possible use of the marshals assigned to courtroom duty to perimeter and entrance security at peak traffic periods in the five justice centers without weapons screening (Findings 2 and 4). · Explore the increased use of surveillance cameras for entrance and perimeter security in the justice centers and most vulnerable County buildings (Finding 3). · Investigate steps to improve security in the Hall of Administration (Finding 5). · Explore the possibility of collecting data on weapons confiscated from visitors and those confiscated from employees at the Lamoreaux and the Central Justice Centers (Finding 6). · Determine if the County employees in the smaller justice centers need to be included in the weapon screening process. (Finding 6). A response to Recommendations 2a and 2b is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F7
The South Main and South Annex Justice Centers have significant safety and security concerns in addition to the elements displayed in the Table 7. These include: · Lack of secure parking for court officers (South Annex). · Numerous areas to correct to achieve ADA compliance; 61 action items for a 42,000 square foot building (South Main). · Congested working conditions—(South Main and South Annex). · Challenge of controlling visitor traffic in a multi-building/trailer complex (South Main). · Difficulty of installing weapon-screening equipment in a leased commercial facility (Annex). A response to Finding 7 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The capital expenditures for the construction of a new South Justice Center should be included in the fiscal year 2000–2001 budget (Finding 7). A response to Recommendation 3 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 11
F8
Many County buildings have numerous areas to correct to achieve full ADA compliance. A response to Finding 8 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the County Executive Office, Division of Risk Management.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The County should continue to examine ways to accelerate the current ADA II transition plan, especially in the phases dealing with the exterior and interior paths (Finding 8). A response to Recommendation 4 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
F9
The County has prepared a 2000–2003 ADA II transition plan for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance for all County-owned and leased facilities with public access requirements as identified in May 1999. A response to Finding 9 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the County Executive Office, Division of Risk Management. 10.A plan has been developed to expand weapon screening to the four smaller County- owned justice centers (North, West, Harbor, and South Main). A response to Finding 10 is required from the Board of Supervisors. 11.The Social Services Agency building on Eckhoff has less square footage per employee than the other eleven buildings (Tables 5 and 6). A response to Finding 11 is required from the Board of Supervisors and requested from the Social Services Agency. 10
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The proposed four-year ADA II transition plan needs sustained financial support from the Board of Supervisors at each annual budget review until the plan is completed (Finding 9). A response to Recommendation 5 is required from the Board of Supervisors.
Commendations 3
-
CM1Current Security System · # of perimeter/entrance security personnel 13 0 0 0 0 0 · Estimated visitors per day 7,5001 1,700 2,400 3,500 900 700 · Surveillance cameras No No No No No No · # of entrances 3 7 13 17 7 11 · Secured parking Yes Yes No 7 Secured Yes No for court officers 26 Protected
-
CM2Major Building Features · Owned or leased Owned Owned Owned Owned Owned Leased · Square footage2 542,000 111,000 123,000 144,000 42,000 21,000 · # of employees 900 233 280 349 136 70 · Square footage 602 476 439 413 309 300 per employee · # of courtrooms 68 14 17 18 6 3
-
CM3Code & Safety Conditions · Fire code Legally Legally Legally Legally Legally Legally compliant3 compliant3 compliant3 compliant3 compliant3 compliant3 · ADA compliance Transition Transition Transition Transition Transition Transition plan 4 plan 4 plan 4 plan 4 plan4 plan 4 Legally Compliant: Meets requirements by law—not necessarily compliant with current code. 1 Includes traffic from 900 employees that utilize first floor entrances. 2 Includes Common Areas & Courtrooms. 3 No sprinklers in working areas. 4 Included in ADA II Transition Plan for approval at Board of Supervisors meeting in July, 2000. 15 APPENDIX—TABLE 6 SELECTED COUNTY BUILDING SUMMARY HALL OF SSA SSA PROBATION ADMIN. SHERIFF SSA Civic Main Main Center Hutton Street Eckhoff Street Plaza Towers CAST
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Orange County
County