Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Columbia County asks counsel to explore allowing Columbia 911 to use John Gunn Building for interviews
Summary
Commissioners directed county counsel April 9 to investigate updating facility-use policy so Columbia 911 can use the John Gunn Building for candidate interviews, but no immediate authorization was granted due to insurance and policy timing concerns.
Get email alerts on the Government Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
On April 9 the Columbia County Board of Commissioners directed county counsel to study whether the board’s facility-use policy can be updated to allow Columbia 911 to use space in the John Gunn Building And Civic Center for interview panels, and to return with recommended steps and agreements.
Commissioner Garrett raised a request from the interim director of Columbia 911 for permission to use the building for interviews for the agency’s replacement. Garrett said the short time frame for the interviews—scheduled for April 20—made it unlikely the county could stand up needed policy changes, insurance and agreements in time. "That time frame is probably gonna be tough to or impossible for them to update a policy and figure out insurance and everything else," Garrett said.
County counsel told the board any change would require agreements and insurance adjustments and would need to come back to the board for approval. The board discussed other venues (the annex and fairgrounds) but concluded those locations are subject to similar constraints or are not the interim director’s preferred option.
The board directed counsel to continue working on updating the policy and to return with language and requirements for allowing Columbia 911 or similar government entities to use the facility; no immediate authorization was issued, and commissioners said they would follow up with Columbia 911 about short-term alternatives for the April 20 date.
The discussion was framed as a policy review and direction to counsel; there was no formal vote recorded to change the policy at the April 9 meeting.
