1999-05-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

141 Mr. Cox said he voted against the proposal previously because he felt that all we would get is a youth jail. Mr. Toscano said that the facility will be close to the jail, but wilt be nothing like a jail. Ms. Peacock said that the facility will be a contained, secured environment, but not a jail, and will have room. to offer education and access to community services. Ms. Peacock stressed that the facility has not yet been designed. Ms. Richards also expressed concern that no multi-use facility is being planned as she was excited about the possibility of that being located at the site. Ms. Richards said she feels it is important for youth to be detained locally. Ms. Peacock said that some of the services mentioned by Ms. Richards could be provided at the site. Ms. Richards wondered whether a facility could be designed which could offer intervention services, something in between what is proposed and a multi-use facility. Ms. Peacock said she feels the current proposal is a positive first step and if the community want to expand and fund other space it could do so in the future. Mr. Caravati said he cannot overcome the negative connotation of the juvenile facility being at the jail site, and will have a problem supporting the location. Mr. Caravati said he thinks the financing terms penalize the City, and he would prefer to step back from this service agreement and look at other funding scenarios. Ms. Richards noted that the County has already agreed to changes in the funding by funding the capital costs 50/50, and she does not think more progress in the formula will be made. Ms. Richards said she would be interested in Council having some later say on the site, Mr_ Toscano asked if the Commission has discussed what happens if the localities do not approve the location, and Ms. Peacock said they have not. Mr. Gouldman said that Council could add language that after consultation with localities the Commission chooses a site, or the members of the Commission could be given instructions regarding a site. Mr. Cox said he thinks many in the community are operating under the assumption that we will have a multi-use facility. Ms. Daugherty noted that the facility, because of the nature of the juvenile offenders, is somewhat of a jail, and the proposal is 100% better than the current situation. Mr. Daugherty said a state of the art facility cannot be constructed now, and she moved to insert a clause in the agreement that a site is chosen "after consultation with and approval from each participating jurisdiction." Mr. Toscano seconded the motion, noting that the intention of the phrase is that the City can veto the location. Mr. Cox said he would like updated information on juvenile crime trends because he would like to be confident that we are building a facility that is warranted. Ms. Peacock said that current statistics of juveniles detained at the Staunton facility, show that Charlottesville and Albemarle could fill up the 40 bed facility now. The amendment to the agreement was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Ms. Daugherty, Ms. Richards, Mr. Toscano. Noes: None. Ms. Richards said she hopes members on the Commission will press for a facility that is rmflti-use, with space for intervention and counseling. Mr. Toscano asked Ms. Richards if she is willing to commit now to funding such a facility, and she replied that she is not.