7/10/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JULJSQ Bo E j ptiu. 580 building costs, and Mr. Halback stated that on the Base Plan 4.47 million is for land, and everything else is building -related costs, impact fees, landscaping, etp. On Concept G, Option A, the land cost is 3.57 million. On Concept G, Option B, the land cost is 3.36 million, and on Option I, the land costs are 3.08 million. Commissioner Scurlock commented that if you take the Base Plan where you move about 20 people and also do away with the Annex, the old Courthouse and the State Attorney's Office, he felt it would be fair to compare that estimated 17.8 million with Concept G, Option A, which is 18.9 M, because you have to give some credit to Option A in that it entails the usage of the State Attorney's building at least, and there is a value to it. He, therefore, felt the difference between those plans would be something less than one million. Administrator Chandler believed Concept G, Option A, takes the State Attorney's building, but it saves the Annex and the Courthouse and those have a value. Mr. Halback agreed obviously there is some value, but he thought you have to look at what are you going to use those properties for and you also need to look at whether that use fits the building you want to put it in and the cost to renovate. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the simplest approach would be the land value underneath the building, and Administrator Chandler felt that any way you cut it, there is some value to that property and those structures. Commissioner Bird noted that he keeps hearing the term renovate, and he is not sure how much major renovation needs to be done on the State Attorney's Office, the Annex, or even the Courthouse. He personally felt those 3 buildings are all very usable as office space for either government purposes or private purposes with mainly minor renovations. Chairman Eggert did not agree and commented that she personally can vouch for the fact that if you spend any time in 30