2002-05-20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

42 court facilities study. Mr. Letted said the goal of the negotiating committee was to identify the first phase of development that is consistent with the couxts study recommendations, is affordable, and that meets the immediate and long-term needs of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Mr. Letteri presented the proposed design of the expansion and parking deck, which preserves the old jail and wall surrounding it. The total budget, including property acquisition, design, building, furnishings and moving expenses, is $9,638,000, with the cost share for the City 45% and Albemarle County 55%. Mr. Cox asked what the charge of the negotiating team was, and Mr. O'Connell said it was to come up with a City/County development plan consistent with the steering committee recommendations, with the focus primarily on the Juvenile Court, and that it be financially feasible. Mr. O'Connetl said that the County has approved the proposal. Mr. O'Connell said there had been a clear signal from the community that the jail needed to be protected. Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Ms. Linda Peacock, Assistant City Manager, said that the negotiating comm~ee proposal is consistent with the guiding principles of the original court study committee. Mr. ToSCano said that the County was in agreement on the guiding principles which are: the new courts should be located downtown; the scale and character of the new court building should be compatible with the surrounding structures; every effort should be made to minimize neighborhood impacts of the new courts in terms of parking, traffic, and sensitivity to neighborhood character; the courts should be within close proximity of each otber; the Albemarle Circuit Court House should continue to be used for court purposes; and each site need not accommodate all parking needs. Mr. Lynch said he feels the recommendation is a good starting point, and he agrees there should be a public hearing. Mr. Caravati asked about the timetable, and Mr. Toscano said it is the sense of the County and the court that we need to move this forward. Mr. Toscano said there are large secur~ issues in the Jwcenile Court. Mr. Cox said he appreciates the work the committee has done and he feels the site is reasonable and that the parking is workable. Mr. Cox said he feels the committee and architect have def'med the parameters of the problem and done pre-design~ After this, Mr. Cox said you get into defining the character of the building. Mr. Cox said he has the sense that Council is being presented with a design and, if that is the case, he thimks it is problematic and that the building fails on a number of levels. Mr. Cox said the guidelines are sound, but he thinks the current architect's work is completed. Now is the time to have an RFP process to allow the development of guidelines or a t~amework. Mr. Cox said he did not understand that the negotiating team would be recommending who would be doing the design work, and he feels there is a need for a full public process to determine who moves this project forward. Mr. Caravati asked why the negotiating team is recommending that the current architect be used for design, and Ms. Peacock said that when the firm was originally hired the possibility of continuing on with them through design was part of the RFP and was written into the contract. Mr. Toscano said that the fnma is very familiar with the design of courts in historic areas. He expressed concern that having a new RFP will delay the process, and if there is a total redesign it will delay it even further. Mr. Toscano said there are issues related to cost and time plays an important role in the considerations. Ms. Peacock noted that the court study committee reviewed this proposal, and recommended both the space and the fagade. Mr. Toscano noted that the design will have to go through the Board of Architectural Review for approval.