7/10/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

building, it ends up coming in $194,600 less than the Base Master Plan. For the record, he just wants to say that it puts it at less than the Base Master Plan. Clerk Barton wished to clarify the difference between Options A and B of Concept G. He believed Option A was to tear down the State Attorney's building and use it for a parking lot, but keep the Annex and keep the Courthouse and build a smaller parking garage. The demolition costs under that scenario dropped from the $148,000 estimated under -the original plan to $36,000. Option B saves the State Attorney's Building but builds a larger parking garage; however, now you are not tearing any building down. Clerk Barton pointed out that there is an error in Option A where it shows a 5% Contingency of $13,950 for the parking garage, Actually, that figure should be $139,000 - the addition is incorrect, and so is the total - so that is an $160,000 difference. He continued that.if you go to Option B, you have left all the buildings and all the square footages contained in them, and what is the value of all that square footage - particularly the State Attorney's Building - because a service that could go in there, which doesn't have to go in the Courthouse itself is Probation. Clerk Barton could not see tearing down an 8,000 sq. ft. building that has a very good potential use and that is convenient to the court building. Commissioner Bird asked Clerk Barton to respond to his earlier comment about using one of the 3 remaining buildings for some of his functions, and Mr. Barton stated that the only part of his operation that could go into the Annex are the departments in the Administration Building. All the court related activities need to be under one roof. Commissioner Scurlock noted that one of the things he finds attractive with Concept G/A'is that it gives you more open space; it is not all buildings. Clerk Barton asked if Option B, which is the. large -r parking JUL 10 19090 35 - war