2002-06-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

50 Ms. Alexandria Searls, 1316 Chesapeake Street, shared concerns expressed by Joan Fenton. She said she would like to see the best architect do the design, but if people are satisfied with the current architect, they should move forward. Mr. Jim Hingeley, Public Defender, urged Council to move immediately on the recommendations. He said the public safety argument is compelling, but there is also an issue of public service which is not provided adequately in the existing space. Mr. David Pettit, attorney and former member of the court study committee, supported moving ahead with the project. Mr. Pettit said neighborhood representatives, architects, historic preservationists and others served on the committee, and they tried to take all things into consideratiorn Mr. Pettit said the negotiating committee was able to balance competing interests. Mr. Frank Buck, President-Elect of the Bar Association, echoed the comments made by those who support moving forward with the project. Mr. Buck said that former Juvenile Court Judge Shannon, who was unable to attend this meeting, said when she retired she left with a sense of relief that no one was killed or seriously injured while she -was there. He said that Judge Shannon continues as a substitute judge, and she said that no facility that she has gone to in the State is more inadequate than the Juvenile Court in Charlottesville. Mr. Buck said very sensitive issues are dealt with in the Juvenile Court and it is a very unsafe and crowded space. Mr. Buck said he shares the concerns about the Court Square area, but he thinks the proposed design respects that concerto He noted that the current architect designed the courthouse in Fluvanna County, and said that the design will have to go before the Board of Architectural Review where refinements can be made. Mr. Dave Chapman, Charlottesville Commonwealth Attorney and downtown resident, echoed the need to move forward because of major safety concerns. He said similar flaws exist in other courts in the City, and they all need to be moved forward in a systematic way. Mr. Chapman said the condition of the Juvenile Court is demoralizing to people Who work there and to the public. Mr. Ken Schwartz, 1933 Blue Ridge Road, an architect and former member of the court study committee, read an e-mail from Anne Hemenway, former member of the court study committee, who said she had always assumed that the architectural design would be competitively bid. She also indicated disappointment that other court needs are not addressed in the recommendation. Mr. Schwartz said there are differences between programming, budgeting and design. He said he tblnks the architect has done a fine job identifying needs, but the design appears to be happening by default. Mr. Schwartz said he values competition and implored Council to considering doing so with utmost haste. As there were no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. Mr. O'Connell asked Council to look at the proposed elements of the RFP if that is how they want to proceed, including: no changes to the footprint, no changes to the programming; no changes to the parking deck; restore the building to the original design; the cost not to exceed the amount in the recommendation; and the project length not extended. Mr. O'Counell said that any design will be subject to BAR review. He said Council can move forward with the recommendation or decide to issue an RFP. Mr. Caravati asked how much time is estimated to be added to issue an RFP and would there be additional cost. Ms. Linda Peacock, Assistant City Manager, said staff estimate that 38 weeks will be added to the process, but are not able to quantify the cost. Mr. Cox said he did not think it was within the charge of the negotiating committee to award the design contract to the current architect. Ms. Peacock said that the contract contains two phases, and the design contract can be awarded to the current architect if approved.