Laserfiche WebLink
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS <br />The City of Salem was asked if it.would experience some <br />administrative efficiencies by being located with the county~s <br />administrative functions. At this point it does not seem that <br />any efficiencies will be possible. <br />The deed restrictions for the Courthouse land was researched to <br />determine if any restrictions exist. On July 17, 1891, the <br />Circuit Court decided the county has clear title to Block 6, the <br />site of the Courthouse. There was a proviso: County erect a <br />substantial brick Courthouse and jail, install a"neat and <br />substantial fence~~ and plant ~~at proper and convenient intervals <br />trees of maple or varieties as shall be adapted to the purpose <br />and to improve and adorn" the grounds. In 1892 the fence was <br />taken down. Years later the Courthouse was moved and a new one <br />constructed. There appears to be no restrictions that would <br />prohibit its use. <br />The Downtown Sub-COmmittee investigated the cost to make the <br />Courthouse secure for court purposes. We also requested the cost <br />to remodel the Courthouse for court or for administrative use. <br />We received information that suggested the cost in either case <br />would be substantial. The Courthouse is designed with high <br />ceilings to provide the proper "majesty" for court proceedings. <br />It appeared much more logical to ~~add" court type amenities to <br />the existing building than build a new court building and rebuild <br />the existing court rooms for administrative purposes. Besides, <br />the remodelled Courthouse will accommodate the growth in Courts. <br />This is not the case with the administrative group. If a new <br />building were built just for the Courts, the existing Courthouse <br />would have to be remodeled, and yet another building constructed. <br />We reviewed the issue of building a new building or leasing space <br />for county departments. We decided to look at new buildings to <br />accommodate growth rather than to relocate them. The rationale <br />is: <br />1. Space may not be available to accommodate the number of <br />employees involved. For example, the Senator Building <br />will need to be torn down, thus requiring space for <br />over 200 employees. <br />2. The public can best be served through a more <br />centralized operation. <br />3. The cost of owning appears to be less expensive than <br />leasing. It was noted, however, that some costs are <br />not now figured into the costs of owning, eg., sinking <br />fund costs are not included in the rent for buildings <br />owned by the county. <br />-6- <br />