Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Before I address the historic preservation of these two structures, let me address a number <br />of questions or recommendations that I have heard regarding other alternatives, lack of a <br />noticeable plan, and the sense of urgency in acting so quickly on the jail and sheriff's <br />residence. <br /> <br />Couldn't the expenses for transporting prisoners from the new jail to the courthouse be <br />saved if a criminal courthouse was built by the new jail? The obvious answer would be <br />yes, but the amount may not be very significant at all. The presence of law enforcement <br />officers with each prisoner is still a reality regardless of where the courthouse is located. <br />In conversations with the Sheriff, most recently this morning, he conveyed to me that no <br />officers could be reduced if the courthouse were near the jail. Although I have no reason <br />to doubt the Sheriff's conclusion, let's assume he is wrong and at least one or two <br />officers could be reduced. Much of the cost savings could, in fact, be offset by the <br />additions of other courtroom support staff at the new site; namely the setting up of <br />another clerk of court area and the staff in this new area. Yes, I know some staff could be <br />simply be shifted, but I have yet to see that there aren't efficiencies with economies of <br />scale in having one office area vs. two. Another consideration is what does this do <br />logistically to the States Attorney's office? More travel for those needing to cover both <br />criminal and civil courts? Once again, there more than likely would be some added costs <br />to the States Attorney's budget under such an arrangement. BOTTOM LINE - I don't <br />believe there would be significant dollars saved when you total up some of the added <br />expenses for having courtrooms so far apart. <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />Why haven't all space needs been fully considered and a long term plan been formalized? <br />The preliminary plans to date are just that - preliminary. The planning is by no means <br />complete for the next phase of county expansion. Every judge, every department, will <br />have more time to discuss their needs with county officials, commissioners, and <br />architects before a final building plan is approved. What was done previously was a <br />rough estimate to size a structure and determine how it might fit within our existing <br />campus. Since the expansion identified by the preliminary assessment would be more <br />cost effective with the removal of the jail and the sheriff's residence; then obviously, the <br />same would hold true if further analysis of space needs indicates even more square <br />footage is required than originally thought. The proper planning has taken place in the <br />past and will continue in the future. A step at a time approach is being used and should <br />not be viewed as poor planning; but rather what is the necessary information for each step <br />along the way. This is no different than how one approaches building a home. One <br />determines approximately how many square feet is affordable, one selects the style of <br />home (two story, rambler, or split level), one selects a lot size and location oflot, and <br />then the detail work begins. There is a natural sequence of events that takes place with <br />any building and that is exactly the process that the county has used thus far. <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />Is there a critical need to act on the jail and sheriff's residence demolition at this time? <br />The answer to this is a resounding yes. It has been discussed that the county would like <br />to be in a position to solicit and award bids for expanded facilities by early 2004. <br />Because months of planning is necessary to bring us to a point of having building <br />specifications ready, the county needs to know which alternative will be used for this <br />