BOC Files (Folders 1-3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

For Joint Board Meeting of October 28,1998 Agenda Item #A.1. , ANAGER MEMO TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: JOHN WHITTINGTON MANAGER, PLANNING AN ARKETING THRU: R G. ANDERSEN- CKOFF GENERAL M SUBJECT: CHZ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Issue Shall the Board adopt resolution #9&14, authorizing the execution of a development agreement with Marion County for the Courthouse Square project? Back4round The Intergovemmental Development Agreement for Courthouse Square is a comprehensive package of exhibits which define the functional relationships between the District and Marion County, including the condaminium deGaration and bylaws, north pad ground lease, and cost allocation model, among other exhibits. The agreement is needed to formalize our relationship as joint owners and condominium partners in the development and operation of Courthouse Square. Facts and Findings 1. The specific e~ibits in the development agreement are: the condominium deGaration; condominium bylaws; private party ground lease; respective shares (cost allocation wo~lcsheet); the project schedule; the continuing party ground lease; and the FTA contract clauses. 2. The exhibits in the development agreement reflect over two years of work and cooperative effort on the part of the District and County staffs and Boards. The exhibits have been developed through coun~ess drafts, adjusting the terms and input data to reflect the most recent conditions. Some of the data will change as the project proceeds to construction documentation and bidding, and the models and agreements are developed in such a fashion as to accommodate and incorporate such changes as the project moves ahead. 3. The materials contained in the development agreement are ccnsistent with the data and information that staff has been reviewing with the Board over the past two years of the project. While the document represents the first time thafi each of the exhibits have been collected into one body, each piece has been developed based on the policy input and involvement of the Boards. In the DistricYs case, much of the content has been reviewed by the CH2 ~ Subcommittee.