Laserfiche WebLink
JUL 211982 <br />x <br />50 �a�r <br />highly recommended the <br />firm for two basic reasons: <br />they did <br />the job they were supposed to do, and were accessible after <br />the job was completed. He stated that many jails were <br />looked at during their months of investigation, and each one <br />had some problems. If the original plans for the jails had <br />been reviewed by knowledgeable people before they were <br />built, Commissioner Lyons felt most of the problems could <br />have disappeared. <br />Commissioner Bird commended Commissioner Lyons and his <br />Committee for their thorough analysis of this subject. <br />Commissioner Lyons stated that if the Board would like, <br />they could arrange for the architect to come before the <br />Board.' He added that, at a later date, the Committee would <br />like -Po send two more people to take the jail course. <br />Commissioner Lyons advised that he had written letters to as <br />many people as he could think of, who would have business <br />with the jail, asking them for their suggestions to be <br />passed on to the consultant. He wanted to be sure <br />everybody's needs would be met in the design of the jail <br />complex. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It <br />was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />APPOINTMENTS TO BUILDING COMMITTEE <br />The Board reviewed the resumes of Joseph C. Stark and <br />John E. Gappa, as well as the following letters: <br />