Laserfiche WebLink
4. Financial Planning: <br />The study has recommended a phased development of the downtown <br />site that attempts to avoid major disruption of the judicial <br />process as its space needs are being addressed. The recom- <br />mended solution proposes the expenditure of approximately <br />$9,350,000 mandating a financial feasibility plan which will <br />generate sufficient net funds. It is recommended that the <br />County retain an independent financial advisor and consider the <br />issuance of a Bond Issue in an amount sufficient to generate <br />the funds indicated. <br />Mr. Reeves advised that a very detailed questionnaire was <br />sent to all the various offices, and the analysis clearly <br />indicated that the courthouse should be located in the same <br />locale. After the new building is constructed on the proposed <br />site, they recommend the dema1ition:of theapresent courthouse and <br />the annex with the possible retention of some of the historical <br />elements from the old courthouse, such as the portico and the <br />engraved block over the entrance. <br />During a slide presentation, Mr. Reeves noted that the <br />present space needs are 75,000 sq. ft., and 103,000 sq. ft. will <br />be needed by the year 2000. Architects Design Group are <br />recommending the acquisition of the two single family detached <br />homes and one duplex unit for parking area and future expansion if <br />needed. They are also suggesting the acquisition of the property <br />adjacent to the State Attorney's Office, so that a pedestrian <br />connector can be tied into the library building and the court <br />complex sometime in the future. Mr. Reeves noted that this plan <br />does not meet the parking requirements, but using the parking <br />space at the adjacent church will alleviate a part of the problem. <br />Architects Design Group made their presentation to the Courthouse <br />Advisory Committee with the recommendation of Option B, which had <br />a total bottom line of $9.9 million. The Courthouse Advisory <br />Committee, however, chose to go to Option C, which had a bottom <br />line cost of $11.7 million, but with the exclusion of having a 5th <br />courtroom built in the Pocahontas Building. <br />18 <br />NOV X988 BOOK 75 [1,E116 <br />L. <br />