My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOC Files (Folders 1-3)
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
BOC Files (Folders 1-3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2012 4:07:50 PM
Creation date
8/2/2011 3:23:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10068
Title
BOC Files (Folders 1-3)
Company
Marion County
BLDG Date
1/1/1999
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Project Coordination
Project ID
CS9801 Courthouse Square Construction
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
608
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
emo <br />To: Board of Director <br />From: R. G. Andersen-W koff <br />Date: October 26, 1998 <br />Re: Courthouse Square Development Agreement <br />Attached to this memorandum are the updated copies of the pages of the <br />Development Agreement and its attachments which represent the final <br />language agreed upon by the County and Transit attorneys and staff. These <br />should be substituted for the appropriately numbered pages in the bound <br />draft which was delivered to each of you last week. <br />Both John Whittington and I were involved in the negotiation of the terms of <br />this agreement and it has been approved as to form by FTA. The finalized <br />document will be forwarded to them this week for their final approval, <br />however, in this instance we should not delay our action pending FTA <br />approval. If FTA should recommend any changes we can make them. by <br />addendum. In the meantime it is essential to the continuation of the project <br />that the County and Transit have this formal agreement in place to guide <br />our respective actions. <br />The entire agreement was drafted by Ben Fetherston with specific care to <br />meeting the requirements of the FTA and, of course, keeping a vigilant eye <br />on the best interests of the District. In this case, however, the best interests <br />of either party were, for the most part, mutual. The agreement, therefore, <br />was negotiated in an atmosphere of mutual interest and benefit rather than <br />being adversarial. <br />~ <br />~ Page 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.