02-16-1999
Laserfiche
>
Public
>
County Commission
>
1999
>
02-16-1999
>
Minutes
>
02-16-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2005 10:31:30 AM
Creation date
4/21/2003 4:11:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Commission Minutes--February 16, 1999 1941 <br /> <br />The Commission next discussed jail site options, and Mrs. Johnson said the list of possible sites <br />has been narrowed down to three by the Site Selection Committee. The top two choices are <br />remote sites and the third choice is the present jail site or adjacent to the County Courthouse. <br />However, the size of the current site is smaller than what is recommended for a new jail, and <br />site preparations would add about $2 million to the construction costs. Mrs. Johnson said the <br />planning consultants recommended a site with about 20 acres in order to have room for <br />adequate parking and future expansion as needed. <br /> <br />Commissioners discussed pros and cons of the three sites. Mr. Wieland said using the current <br />site would prohibit other county expansion, the building would be at least 100' tall with <br />expansion to 150' which may not be suited to the neighborhood, and he also feels the county <br />needs to consider a site that would allow the possibility of a regional facility and regional law <br />enforcement center in the future. Mrs. Schneider favors keeping the jail at the courthouse <br />location because that is historically where it has been located, and the current site is convenient <br />to the courts. Mr. Wieland said transportation from a remote site to the courthouse may not be <br />such an issue as first thought because of the possibility of video arraignments. Jim Thoreson, <br />Sheriff's Department Chief Deputy, served on the Site Selection Committee, and he said <br />transportation would be minimal if video arraignments are authorized. <br /> <br />Mrs. Johnson said Cass County has been selected for a pilot project on video hearings, and the <br />first meeting on this topic is scheduled for next week, February 24th, at 1 :30 PM in the Cass <br />County Commission Room. The only other pilot site in North Dakota will be at the State <br />Hospital in Jamestown, and the project would begin with mental health proceedings. <br /> <br />Mr. Koenig said a number of good reasons have been stated for eliminating the Courthouse <br />campus as a potential site, and he supports pursuing a remote location. Mrs. Schneider <br />mentioned a letter from Federal Judge Rodney Webb citing reasons for building a new jail at <br />or near the present facility. <br />MOTION, withdrawn <br />Because of the additional cost considerations in building a new jail <br />at the current location, Mr. Wieland moved and Mr. Meyer seconded <br />to eliminate the Courthouse campus site option from the site <br />selection list; and that the County Commission gather community <br />input regarding any proposed remote location. Discussion: Mrs. <br />Schneider acknowledged that the cost of building on the current site <br />would be higher, but she asked not to eliminate this location before <br />gathering public input on all three sites. Mr. Meyer brought up the <br />problems with the jail boiler. Also, he called attention to Richard <br />Strege, in the audience, who served on the Site Selection Committee. <br />Mr. Wieland withdrew his motion and Mr. Meyer withdrew the second <br />at this time. <br /> <br />MOTION, passed <br />Mr. Wieland moved and Mrs. Schneider seconded to accept the <br />recommendation of the Site Selection Committee in the order of <br />priority as presented, and to gather public input regarding any future <br />proposed location; and that a decision be made within 60 days from <br />today's date. On roll call vote, motion carried unanimously. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.