Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County commissioners debate firearms policy, insurance and operations for new Rockingham County building
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a draft facility‑use agreement for the county’s new building, discussed firearms rules and liability insurance for events, and asked staff to get detailed recommendations from the county attorney, the sheriff and Primax (the facility manager) before adopting final policies.
Rockingham County commissioners spent substantial time on Oct. 9 discussing how the new county building will be used, secured and insured once it opens. Commissioners said they want clearer rules on after‑hours staffing, indemnification and whether to restrict firearms inside the new facility.
Why it matters: The new building will host county business and public events; commissioners said they must decide how to balance open public access with staff safety and liability protection.
County officials reviewed an existing facility‑use agreement that was written for the county’s current Hilton venue and suggested it needs amendments for the new auditorium and conference spaces. Officials flagged several specific issues: who will staff doors after hours, whether the county should prohibit firearms on county property, and whether a $1 million certificate of insurance requirement is appropriate for smaller nonprofit users.
“I'm not going to see people being allowed to bring in a firearm,” one county official said during the meeting, citing concerns about staff safety in public‑facing offices. Commissioners also noted that New Hampshire is a constitutional‑carry state and that enforcement and security differ from facilities with screening and posted security checkpoints.
The board asked staff to get written guidance from Primax (the facility management vendor), the county attorney’s office and the sheriff’s office about: (1) permissible restrictions on weapons at county facilities, (2) recommended insurance limits and indemnification language for event users, and (3) an appropriate fee or overtime compensation policy for staff who must open/close and secure the building for after‑hours events. Commissioners proposed a modest after‑hours fee (discussion referenced an example $250) to cover staffing costs, and they said the county should consider a schedule of per‑hour fees for events that extend beyond normal business hours.
Commissioners also discussed internal scheduling and calendar management for conference rooms and asked that department heads coordinate intended uses through the county scheduler so spaces are not double‑booked. They directed staff to return with recommended edits to the facility‑use agreement and suggested consulting the sheriff and county manager on security procedures.
Ending: Staff were asked to compile a list of recommended contract language and operational options and return to the board for further action; no policy change was adopted at the meeting.
