Marion County approves hallway cameras, hires outside litigation counsel; river landing work to close access about 90 days

Marion County council members voted to install surveillance cameras in the hallway of the county’s Visa Building and approved hiring outside litigation counsel, and they were told preconstruction work at a local river landing will close the site to general traffic for about 90 days, officials said at a county meeting (date not specified).

Council members said the camera installation follows complaints that someone had been sheltering inside the building and that employees were uneasy about access to restrooms and common areas. A council member who led the discussion asked the council to approve installing cameras and said the county’s extension service had agreed to cover the cost of the cameras.

The move to add cameras is intended to reduce unauthorized overnight use of the building and to make employees feel safer. The same council member said staff will probe the cost and feasibility of adding a panic alarm system and return with numbers. “I would like to get recommend to move on to approve that,” the council member said during the meeting; the motion to proceed with cameras was accepted in session, according to the meeting record.

Dan Black, Marion County public works director, briefed the council on the river landing project, saying the county held a preconstruction meeting with the contractor last Monday and the contractor has already moved equipment on site. Black said the landing will be blocked from general traffic for the duration of work but that local residents will retain access. He estimated the construction should last about 90 days and cautioned that rain days built into the contract could extend that timeline.

Council members also discussed a recent animal-control issue involving a pack of dogs. A council member said staff would get animal control officers engaged to address the situation.

Separately, the council moved to authorize a contract with outside counsel identified in the meeting as Wallace Joy to handle litigation matters related to the county’s “food offshore process” (language in the meeting record). The motion was made, seconded and recorded as approved; no vote tally or contract dollar amount was specified in the meeting record.

No specific budget line-item amounts, contract values or firm deadlines were given in the remarks summarized at the meeting. Council members asked staff to return with cost estimates and further details for both the panic alarm option at the Visa Building and the camera purchase/installation.

Next steps identified at the meeting include staff return reports with cost estimates and a timeline for the alarm and camera work, continued oversight of the river-landing construction schedule by the public works department, and animal-control follow-up. The meeting record does not specify dates for those follow-ups.