Laserfiche WebLink
_I <br />MAR 2 0 1985 Boor. 00 Fa,F 26.0 <br />Commissioner Bird stressed that if our standards require <br />more than Code, it should be so stated and made plain that we are <br />not necessarily saying the building is unsafe. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed his position has been <br />established that we should get on about it, bite the bullet, as <br />the Administrator suggested, retain the services of an architect, <br />and plan for the long range. <br />MOTION was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded <br />by Commissioner Bowman, to retain an architect as <br />discussed above to design a building to house the <br />Sheriff's Department, possibly at the jail site, which <br />building should have the ability to expand. <br />Chairman Lyons noted that if this building is to be at the <br />jail site, the design must be architecturally compatible. <br />Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that this does not mean we <br />will move everything from the downtown area; he believed the <br />State Attorney and Public Defender will be there for some time. <br />In further discussion, Commissioner Bowman pointed out that <br />we are not talking about a justice -building; we are talking about <br />a Sheriff's building; and it was generally agreed that what we <br />actually are talking about is office space. <br />Commissioner Bird stated that he would go along with the <br />Motion because he felt there are several other factors relative <br />to the Southern Bell building that probably make it unsuitable <br />for the particular needs of the Sheriff, but he did wish to <br />clarify that the roof of the Southern Bell building may be fine <br />for normal purposes. <br />Commissioner Wodtke concurred. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. <br />It was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />84 <br />