Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff outline plan for single public security screening with secondary station for high‑volume days
Summary
Washington County staff presented a security plan that would direct most public visitors through a single screened entrance at the government center while keeping a secondary screening station available on jury or election days; committee members discussed traffic, access for staff, and applicable court security rules.
Washington County Building Project Committee members heard details of a proposed security arrangement for the government center that would route most public visitors through one screened entrance and open a secondary screening station for peak events such as jury days and elections.
The plan presented by Scott (staff member) shows a main public entrance on the east side of the building where visitors would normally be funneled through screening before proceeding to courtrooms or other public functions. A second temporary or secondary security station would be placed to serve traffic from the north entrance during high-volume periods, such as elections or large hearings.
Committee members asked about staffing and physical barriers for the secondary station. Sergeant Hennis (Sheriff's department sergeant) said the county would staff one or two deputies at the security points; both stations would not be open every day and both could be scheduled for peak times. Committee members discussed options ranging from low-cost delineators (ropes, stanchions) to more substantial temporary partitions and agreed final details would be determined in consultation with the sheriff's office.
The group also reviewed who sets rules for items allowed through court security. Scott said materials in the meeting packet included a Supreme Court rule (identified in the packet as Rule 6805) and a county policy listing allowed and prohibited items; Scott and other staff recommended applying the same rule set to both current and future buildings for clarity. Miss Romain (committee member) raised everyday concerns such as whether common items (for example, water bottles) would be prohibited and whether concealed‑carry rules would differ for staff using an employee entrance.
Committee members pressed for clarity on employee access vs. public screening. Scott said employee doors would use card access and that some employee entrances would remain private; enforcement and specific exclusions (for example, for water bottles or other small items) are handled by the security facilities committee and the sheriff's office. Supervisor Slade and Supervisor Krebs raised traffic and queuing concerns around the new entrance locations and requested further study of parking access and wayfinding.
Scott said staff will take additional time to refine the plan with the sheriff's department and bring a more detailed proposal about the west‑side security and day‑of‑election arrangements to a future meeting. There were no formal actions or votes on security at this meeting.
The presentation and follow-up questions made clear the county intends to balance visitor convenience and public access with the sheriff's operational security requirements; final design and operational staffing will be determined after further coordination with the sheriff and other departments.
