My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1991 - 01-07-91 Regular Meeting
public access
>
Clerk
>
MINUTES
>
1991
>
1991 - 01-07-91 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2009 11:02:48 AM
Creation date
4/15/2009 11:01:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Admin-Clerk
Document Type
Minutes
Committee
Board of Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
0 Bm 13 Fk,=_ 534 <br />Commissioner Wicker asked what would be torn down. <br />Commissioner Cox stated that the one-story wing would be torn <br />down. <br />Commissioner Matthews stated that if the building were to <br />be preserved, the public would certainly want it to also be <br />used. <br />Commissioner Cox stated that the Board of Commissioners <br />has the authority to demolish the building now. This Board <br />governs Lee County, and it has the authority to do so. <br />Commissioners twenty years from now may opt to do so. <br />Historical designation will not prevent the building from <br />being removed. <br />Commissioner Paschal stated that the original building <br />would not be deserted; it would be maintained. <br />Commissioner Matthews stated that if kept there for <br />public use, all the things will have to be put in. Excuses <br />have been made for not using it for the purposes for which it <br />should be used. Commissioner Cox stated that the Board of <br />Elections would continue to occupy it with more space, which <br />they desperately need. There would be plenty of uses for it. <br />Commissioner Paschal stated that if the County does <br />nothing to the building initially, the Code does not apply. <br />However, when work begins on the building, then it will have <br />to be brought into compliance with code. <br />Commissioner Matthews asked Commissioner Paschal if he <br />feels that when people are put in the building, the building <br />will have to be changed. Commissioner Paschal stated that it <br />would not have to be changed. <br />Commissioner Hall stated that he agrees with Commissioner <br />Matthews. It was the intent of the voter that the courthouse <br />be continued as a functioning courthouse. A number of people <br />with whom he has spoken have indicated to him that was their <br />intent. In looking at the plans that are being presented, it <br />seems that the County will not get around having to do <br />something to the present courthouse. If the County spends all <br />their money on the new facility that is being presented, there <br />will not be enough money to do what is necessary to maintain <br />the courthouse. If any type of office goes in there, it will <br />not be maintained as it would be if used as a courthouse. <br />There are feasible ways to attach to the courthouse and update <br />it and build the new facilities. The plan has three <br />courtrooms. Why does the County need three more courtrooms? <br />In talking with several of the judges last week, they seem to <br />think that too much emphasis is on the superior court and <br />needs to be on the district court, with a much larger district <br />courtroom to seat as many as 350 people. The present <br />courtroom could still serve as a superior courtroom. The <br />architect should draw some more plans, showing the Board an <br />alternative to allow the Board a choice of different plans in <br />determining which is best. These plans do not meet some of <br />the criteria at which the Board needs to look. The food would <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.