Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Security Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee declines jury-room voting plan, endorses single security checkpoint with added staffing cost
Summary
Washington County Executive Committee reviewed a plan to use the jury room and justice center for voting, accepted legal advice that the jury room is not suitable, and agreed to use a single security checkpoint with an estimated $32,000 in additional annual staffing costs while staff pursue alternative polling sites.
Washington County Executive Committee on an unspecified date reviewed security and polling-location plans for the Government Center and Justice Center and agreed not to use the jury room as a polling place after county legal counsel advised the location would permit people to enter the justice center without going through required security.
Committee members said the new building configuration will route all public entrants through a single security checkpoint on the east side of the Government Center; the committee heard an estimate that additional staffing for the checkpoint would cost about $32,000 annually.
The committee heard from staff and law-enforcement representatives that the revised configuration consolidates screening from two stations down to one and produces significant cost savings compared with maintaining two checkpoints. County counsel’s written opinion — summarized in the committee report and cited during discussion — recommended against locating a polling place that would allow voters to bypass screening required for the justice center. The presenter said judges control access rules for the justice center, citing that authority as coming from the Supreme Court.
Committee members discussed operational details and accessibility. Staff explained that anyone entering through the east-side public entrance would pass the security screening; employees who park in the western lot would not pass through that checkpoint. The committee also discussed how the checkpoint design should accommodate wheelchairs and motorized scooters and noted that queuing walls would likely be lower, countertop-height barriers rather than full-height walls.
While no formal vote was recorded on the floor during the discussion, the committee expressed consensus with the county attorney’s guidance and directed staff to pursue other polling locations. Staff told the committee the next election likely affected by the change is not until February 2026, giving time to identify alternative sites, and that some potential options have already been identified. Committee members said they prefer to continue using the current practice through the start of construction but want a firm end date established and communicated to partner municipalities (the city of West Bend was mentioned). One committee member asked whether departments that benefit from the security presence would be charged for additional staffing; staff said cost-allocation has not been finalized.
The committee also discussed signage and how security policy for the Government Center and Justice Center may differ because judges govern the justice center while the county will set policy for the Government Center. Staff said separate rules and postings would likely be used for each building and that any formal changes to the screening policy would come back through committee and then to the full board for approval if required.
Committee members and staff requested more detail on the cost allocation and operational hours for added security and asked staff to return with further information. The committee set no formal motion or recorded roll-call vote on the item; staff noted next related committee review and broader project briefings will occur during subsequent meetings.
