COURTS COMPLEX NEGOTIATIONS City’s Position 1. City contribution 25% of actual costs to implement Frazier Plan after deduction of Historic Tax Credits. City cap of $12.5 million. 2. Debt to be issued and carried by County. 3. Suitable accommodation for parking for persons with disability in close proximity to each of the three Courts. - Eight handicapped spaces could be provided for the new building and 1901 structure in the parking lot on the S.E. corner of Augusta and Johnson Streets. - For the Cochran Judicial Center, there is an on-street handicapped designated space on New Street that ties into an accessible route to the west side of the building via a sidewalk that passes through the garden. 4. Additional Parking A) Judges – secure garage parking in new building. Similar secure arrangement for J&D at Cochran Judicial Center. B) Other Employees – In new garage, as part of Courthouse, plus top level of the City’s Johnson Street parking garage. County’s Response 1. To accept Staunton’s Frazier Plan, City should fund 50% of costs (after Tax Credits). - Cost of Frazier Plan could exceed the $44 million to locate in Verona. - City benefits 100% from local Tax Revenues generated due to Courts presence in Staunton. - City’s caseload 34% - City’s population growing faster than County’s (4% vs. 1% since 2010 Census) 2. Debt should be jointly issued and carried by City-County based on funding split. 3. Frazier Plan does not adequately address handicapped needs at three proposed courts locations. 4. Additional Parking A) Acceptable B) Acceptable for employees in New Building but not for employees at Cochran Judicial Center. C) County would prefer dedicated onsite parking as envisioned with Moseley Verona Plan. C) Public Parking – validated parking for 800 existing offstreet parking spaces downtown. 5. Previously offered items - Waiver of fees - Use of Barristers Row and parking lot as staging areas. - Use of Cochran Judicial Center and City Council Chambers as detailed in City’s March 2, 2015 letter. 6. Consolidation of Courts-City will pursue, cooperatively, diligently and in good faith. 7. Frazier 2015 Conceptual Plan – as proposed 5. Acceptable 6. Understand City is currently leaning more toward “shared use” vs. “consolidation”. 7. County would prefer single Staunton structure (vs. 3 facilities). - Courtroom dimensions not adequate based on Virginia Court Space Standards or Judges’ needs. - Multiple Security check points not as secure as single security check point with Moseley Plan. - Three structures not functionally efficient for Bailiffs’ oversight regarding courtroom safety and prisoner movement/transportation. - With two structures 100 and 150 years old, current and future fiscal savings with operating efficiencies, i.e., HVAC, roofs, electrical, structural, etc., not as significant as compared to a single new structure. - Frazier Plan for “future expansion” not financially feasible (adding a third floor). - Frazier Plan estimate to purchase Union Bank Property 45% “over” current City assessment. - MRRJ would need to drop off prisoners at three locations vs. a single location as with Moseley Plan.