January 14, 2020 Hood County Special Called Workshop

Open with transcript & summary →Search this meeting's transcript →

The Hood County Special Called Workshop on January 14, 2020 addressed two primary agenda items: the closure of Trinity Armored Security effective January 20 and the resulting need for alternative money transport services, and office relocation and space utilization concerns across multiple county departments. Regarding armored car services, the court decided to solicit competitive bids while implementing an interim arrangement with internal personnel (sheriff and constables) to maintain continuity. For the office space issue, the court directed affected staff to form a committee to study relocation needs and develop a comprehensive plan that prioritizes overall county function and communication flow rather than individual preferences, with a two-week timeline for collaborative resolution.

• Workshop meeting called to order—armored car service contract discussionThe meeting was called to order to discuss the current armored car service contract and determine action after the provider announced closure.
• Trinity Armored Security Company closure and service disruptionTrinity Armored Security, the county's armored car service provider, announced it is going out of business effective January 20, 2020, leaving a gap in money pickup and bank deposit services.
• Current money pickup locations and proceduresThe county currently uses Trinity for pickups at multiple locations: TAC office in Acton, JP3 office in Acton, county clerk annex, and historic courthouse; all money is consolidated and delivered to the bank.
• Alternative options discussed: in-house versus armored company servicesCounty staff and elected officials discussed whether to use internal county personnel (sheriff or constables) or continue with a commercial armored car service through competitive bidding.
• Constable and sheriff involvement in money transportA constable stated willingness to transport money to the treasurer's office daily as part of routine courthouse visits, and the sheriff indicated flexibility in supporting the service.
• County insurance coverage for money transportInsurance coverage from TAC liability insurance was confirmed to cover up to $250,000 per occurrence for theft, disappearance, and destruction of money in the care of a messenger.
• Concerns about reliance on elected officials and operational continuityCounty staff raised concerns about depending on elected officials for regular money transport, noting uncertainty about future leadership and potential administrative burden.
• Documented service reliability issues with TrinityMultiple county staff reported instances where Trinity failed to arrive on schedule or sent drivers without proper credentials, requiring county employees to make deposits themselves.
• Decision framework: competitive bidding and trial period approachThe court decided to solicit competitive bids for armored car services while implementing a temporary trial arrangement with internal personnel to bridge the service gap after Trinity's January 20 closure.
• Interim money transport coordination with sheriff and other officialsCourt directed the treasurer to coordinate with the sheriff and other officials to establish an interim money transport arrangement until a new armored car vendor is selected through competitive bidding.
• Agenda item two: remodel and relocation of county officesThe court began discussion of agenda item two regarding remodeling Annex 3 or relocating the auditor, purchasing, environmental health, and road operations offices.
• Auditor's rationale for potential relocation to ActonThe auditor proposed moving her office from the courthouse annex to Acton, citing need to be near the county's surplus property storage location and noting current staff-to-space constraints.
• Acton office facility conditions and IT requirementsAn office at Acton has heating, electricity, and air conditioning already in place but needs cleaning and furniture moves; IT indicated a network line may need to be pulled.
• Mail room partial relocation proposalThe auditor proposed keeping the mail room at the courthouse, with staff working half-day mail duties in the morning and then moving to Acton in the afternoon before returning to courthouse for final processing.
• Auditor-purchasing office interaction concernsThe auditor and purchasing director expressed concerns about the distance and workflow impact if auditor relocates to Acton, noting significant daily interaction and need for original signatures on documents.
• Staffing and communication concerns across county officesAuditor noted constant back-and-forth traffic between offices (auditor, purchasing, environmental health, and road operations) and stressed reliance on original documents and face-to-face coordination.
• Court's guidance on office relocation decision-makingThe court emphasized finding the best solution for overall county function and communication flow, rather than prioritizing individual preferences, and noted that decisions must consider workload and staff coordination needs.
• Alternative space reallocation proposalA commissioner proposed a comprehensive office shuffling plan involving moving multiple departments to address parking and space constraints at Annex 2 and 3, triggered by pending departure of the environmental health director.
• Alternative mitigation within existing courthouse spaceAnother commissioner suggested a lower-cost solution: moving environmental health to the front office at Acton (avoiding the $10,000 networking cost) and using existing space at the courthouse back area rather than relocating to a separate building.
• Committee-based approach for office reorganizationThe court directed the auditor and involved parties to form a committee to study the office space needs and develop a comprehensive relocation plan with input from all affected departments.
• Building utilization and cost-benefit analysisThe court noted $1.4 million invested in an underutilized building and expressed reluctance to disrupt county operations and cohesion simply to fill available space.
• Interaction between auditor and environmental health operationsAuditor emphasized the necessity of proximity to environmental health staff for daily operational coordination and noted that remote work solutions would not address the core interaction needs.
• Environmental health space and contractor access issuesEnvironmental health director reported being located at Annex 2 with contractor parking problems, necessitating off-site vehicle parking and requesting co-location closer to courthouse operations.
• Court directive for collaborative problem-solving among staffThe court directed all affected staff to work together collaboratively to resolve office space issues, emphasizing the importance of avoiding office politics and internal conflict, with a commitment to revisit the issue in two weeks if parties cannot reach agreement.