Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Columbia County weighs selling versus renovating vacant Planning Building amid ADA, dispatch concerns
Summary
At an April 27 work session, county officials discussed whether to sell, rent or renovate a vacant Planning Building after Washington State University expressed interest; speakers raised ADA-accessibility costs, potential grant-repayment obligations if sold, and security and technical concerns about moving dispatch into the space.
Columbia County officials considered multiple options for a vacant Planning Building at a work session on April 27, focusing on whether to sell the property, rent it, or pay for renovations to meet accessibility and operational needs.
S4 (Staff member) told colleagues that Washington State University had asked whether its office could move into the building and reported, "She had a $600 power bill last month. Plus they pay $600 a month for rent." Participants said they would need to confirm whether the building meets Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and noted that an ADA plan must be in place and acted on to keep eligibility for federal grants.
The discussion reviewed prior attempts to sell the building — including two auctions and a price reduction — and noted that selling a property sometimes triggers grant clauses that require repayment to the original funder. S7 (Staff member) cautioned that some past grant-funded work could obligate the county to return funds if a sale occurs; speakers said staff should research any such restrictions before pursuing a sale.
Commissioners and staff also debated whether moving dispatch to the Planning Building was feasible. Concerns included narrow hallways and bathroom access for people using wheelchairs, the visual security of glass-fronted spaces for overnight dispatch staff, and whether CJIS or other sheriff's-office systems could be extended to a different building. The group agreed it would be useful to have a staff member with construction experience inspect the site; multiple participants suggested asking Jason to visit the building and give an initial assessment.
On logistics, S1 (Chair) noted the county holds an existing lease that "ends [in] a 5 year lease" (as described in the session) and said the county could delay renewal while it evaluates options. Staff and members discussed selling versus renting-to-buy as alternatives that could put the property back on the tax rolls while avoiding long-term county landlord responsibilities.
Next steps agreed in the discussion were to research ADA and grant constraints, have a construction-capable staffer inspect the bathroom and other accessibility issues, and gather historic utility and rent figures to compare renovation costs with sale proceeds. The meeting moved to an executive session on personnel immediately after the public portion of the work session.
The county did not take a formal vote on the building’s disposition during the session; participants described the steps they expect staff to complete before returning with recommendations.
