|
At the meeting of the
Facilities Planning and Implementation Committee (FPIC) held
on Tuesday, May 11, 2004, the committee reviewed design
options for the courthouse improvements. Some background
regarding this issue may be helpful.
In June 2003, a work session
was held with the Board and project architects to review the
proposed design for improvements to the Courthouse. At the
work session, the Board requested the architect to consider
design options that would allow for the construction of new
courtrooms in the courthouse.
In July 2003, a report
concerning further study of expansion concepts was presented
to the Board. The report provided four scenarios:
Scenario One:
Original Space Re: Allocation
This represents the current
plan to provide for realignment of the fourth floor for the
offices of the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Circuit Court
Judge. It includes a restricted access elevator between the
courtrooms and Judge’s chambers. Estimated Cost: $2,650,000
Scenario Two:
Relocate the Courtrooms to the Fourth Floor
A small expansion was
required to provide core facilities such as an elevator,
stairways and restrooms. The concept required relocating
Community Development from the third floor. Estimated Cost:
$7,550,000
Scenario Three:
Horizontal Building Expansion
Provides additional space
that allow for new courtrooms and court support space
located on the same floor. Estimate Cost: $9,100,000
Scenario Four:
Reconfigure Existing Courtrooms
Studies the possible
conversion of the existing two-level Circuit courtrooms to
one-level courtrooms.
This scenario was
substantially more expensive than Scenario One and presented
other serious deficiencies. It was not recommended for
further consideration.
At the June 2003 work
session, the Board selected Scenario One and work progressed
to develop this concept more fully. A number of meetings
were held between the departments and architect to
effectively allocate space under this plan.
As the design development
proceeded, the architect presented new cost estimates for
Scenario One. A detailed cost estimate reported that the
costs were expected to increase from $2,650,000 to
$3,600,000. These issues were discussed with the committee
in February 2004. The design of the project was put on hold
and the architect reviewed possible cost savings options.
His report is contained in a
letter of March 3, 2004,
which was included on the March 2004 FPIC agenda. The FPIC
reviewed this project, as well as the project to improve the
Adult Detention Center, and considered a number of different
approaches to reduce the anticipated project costs. During
these discussions, it was suggested that the restricted
internal elevator be replaced by making one of the existing
elevators partially restricted, or that an exterior elevator
be constructed. There was also consideration of
reconfiguring the fourth floor office layout to take
advantage of existing walls and finishes in order to reduce
costs. Attached is a letter from the architect regarding
these issues.
The issue of the courthouse
design and budget was on the March agenda of the FPIC. Mr.
Robison did not attend the March 2004 meeting due to
illness. The committee meeting was held as scheduled and
after reviewing the matter, Mr. Downey authorized the
architect to continue with the development of drawings and
specifications based on the original concept. In order to
reduce costs, it was suggested that the courthouse and jail
improvements be bid as a package and that additional bidders
be solicited. Attached are the
minutes of the March
2004 meeting.
Prior to the May meeting of
the FPIC, Mr. Robison indicated that he did not concur with
the plan to continue with the original design concepts. He
supports the elimination of the elevator and redesign of the
fourth floor space to reduce the project costs.
The issue was discussed
again at the May FPIC meeting. Mr. Downey and Mr. Robison
have different opinions regarding this matter and therefore,
have asked that the full Board consider this issue.
The design work on the
project is complete and has been referred to the
Construction Management contractor for review. It is
anticipated that the project will be bid July or August
2004, based on the original design concepts, unless the
Board wishes to proceed in a different manner.
|