Laserfiche WebLink
Pr- <br />NOV 16 1J" <br />if 5 PACEM <br />consideration the savings generated by jury pooling. Judge <br />Smith continued that acoustics are of vital importance since <br />they now record their hearings rather than pay a court <br />reporter, and he did not believe the county employees, who <br />are not professionals, have the capability of designing a <br />workable courtroom. He further did not think that any type <br />of temporary courtroom would work and believed that any <br />so-called "temporary" courtroom would become a permanent <br />courtroom. The Judge emphasized that they do not need a <br />courtroom at the jail site, only a hearing room, and he felt <br />if the Commission would build the courtroom in the Annex, it <br />would be sufficient for the next three to five years,. at <br />which point possibly some could be done to split off <br />the County Judge. He again stressed that the fourth <br />courtroom is needed now, and urged that the Board approve <br />the plan submitted by Architect Calmes and implement <br />financing. <br />Administrator Wright asked if Judge Smith felt they <br />could live with the low ceiling height, and Judge Smith <br />believed so. He noted that he is relying on the architect, <br />who in his letter stated that they do not anticipate any <br />acoustical problem from the low ceiling if a complete sound <br />system is implemented. <br />Commissioner Lyons noted that Court Administrator <br />Douglas had no problems with the revised plan prepared by <br />the County staff and further noted that we are -not sure we <br />are going to have enough money to do anything much different <br />in any event. <br />Judge Smith was emphatic on the point that the judici- <br />ary does not want to rely on plans that are not done by a <br />professional architect or built by a general contractor. As <br />to funds, the Judge noted that figures have been mentioned <br />in the range of $250,000 to $450,000 and also pointed out <br />120 <br />