Montrose - Daily Press

Katharhynn Heidelberg

Daily Press News Editor

MONTROSE — A bill up for vote next week could help local courts enhance security.

Advertisement

Colorado Senate Bill 118 would create a cash fund by increasing surcharges imposed on various criminal convictions and civil court filings. Eligible counties could then apply for grant funding for security staffing, equipment and training.

Chief Judge Steven Patrick told other members of the local 7th Judicial District at a meeting Monday the projected increase of $5 per surcharge was expected to generate $2.5 million per year.

The bill is written to provide supplemental funding for counties of the most limited means and Patrick said all six counties in the local judicial district — Montrose, Delta, Ouray, Gunnison, Hinsdale and San Miguel — meet at least two of the criteria spelled out in SB 118.

To be eligible for the funding, counties must have a population base, per-capita income or property tax revenues below the state median. Also eligible are counties where the total population living below the federal poverty line is greater than the state median. Counties must meet at least two of these criteria.

Patrick said the provisions for security measures were not mandates. “Some of the most effective security measures are low-cost,” he said. “It’s not telling you, ‘You have to do this.’”

Patrick said something so simple as extra perimeter patrols for court buildings and courtrooms could help and could be performed at no extra cost by a deputy already on duty.

The Montrose courts have several security procedures in place. There is only one way for the public to access the courts at the Justice Center and once passing through that door, people must go through a metal detector manned by MCSO deputies. Several doors leading out of the building are self-locking and/or alarmed. Cameras keep a close eye on courtrooms, hallways, chambers and prisoners, who are brought to court from the adjacent jail via a tunnel. Deputies conduct regular patrols and also sit in on various court proceedings.

County Judge John Mitchel told the Daily Press in 2005 he thought the security system itself was good, but he had concerns staffing wasn’t adequate.

“There’s always security issues at a courthouse,” Montrose County Commissioner Bill Patterson said. Patterson and his fellow commissioners, Allan Belt and Gary Ellis, attended Monday’s meeting with Patrick.

“You never know. You’re dealing with people quite often that are unbalanced or not thinking clearly. Anything could happen.”

He said courts in the county have “significant” issues when it comes to security, and pointed to the Nucla Associate Court on the West End.

Patterson said it has only one way in and one way out, which is both a security and a safety hazard. The county is examining what it would take to install another door and how to pay for it. “It’s another drop that’s coming out of our general fund money,” he said.

The county is responsible for providing security at state courthouses and the pending bill is designed to help places like Montrose fulfill their requirements.

“Although the provision of security for state court facilities is a county responsibility, the variation in funds available to individual counties may not allow fundamental security measures to be met in each county,” the measure reads.

“The goals...shall be to provide supplemental funding for ongoing security staffing in the counties with the most limited financial resources.”

Patterson said the measure sounded promising.

“Especially since we do have the TABOR revenue restriction removed, this will be another source of revenue we didn’t have before. It should help,” he said.

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights caps the revenues of governmental entities and requires them to refund moneys received over that amount. Prior to the relaxations local voters approved last year, the county had to take care not to exceed its cap when applying for state grants or other funds, like those provided for under SB 118.

But, Patterson added, he wanted to be certain the additional funding under the bill would be long-term. The current measure would sunset in 2017.

“What I always worry about is making sure something isn’t set up to where we only get the initial funding and then, in order to continue the initial security that’s been set up, we have to dip into the general fund to keep it going,” Patterson said.

He said the sunset provision might be intended as incentive to ensure the fund is properly used and further legislation could reauthorize SB 118’s provisions when the time comes.

The bill would also create a commission for the court security cash fund and local security teams. The latter are to be composed of county residents, chief district court judges like Patrick, sheriffs, a county commissioner or manager, or their designees.

Additionally, the state court administrator is empowered under the bill to accept gifts, grants or donations for the purpose of implementing the fund. This money must be sent along to the state treasurer’s office, where it will be added to the fund.

Local security teams would apply to the cash fund commission through the state court administrator.

The measure has passed the Senate and heads to the House for a vote.

Comments