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
Marion County <br />Initial Findings and Recommendations-Courthouse Square Project <br />August 8, 1996 - Page 2 <br />With these conditions, options and caveats in mind and based on our analysis as detailed <br />in this memo, -- <br />- ~ irst question is whether <br />the County can afford an increase in per square foot rental from the projected $.90 per <br />square foot, in 1999 to a targeted $1.20 or higher. Secondly, absent voter approval to <br />finance the project with general obligation bonds, the County has contemplated using <br />certificates of participation ultimately backed by the County's General Fund. The final <br />element of affordability is what is the potential result, if the County does nothing. <br />In the attached "Marion County Rent Comparison" we compare the annual rental costs of <br />the Project, at $1.20 per square foot, versus the status quo over a 25-year period. By <br />pursuing the Project, the County fixes its capital rent element. <br />~ <br />This does not take into <br />consideration additional potential economies related to personnel availability, energy <br />efficiency and the like. <br />A second affordability test is contained in our attached "Capital Cost Analysis." Using <br />Mr. Berry's "Best and Worst Cases," we assessed the financial impact of each scenario <br />versus the targeted budget of $1,080,000. We then converted that shortfall to the <br />reduction of capital cost required to meet the budget. While those potential reductions <br />are meaningful, they appear to be manageable. <br />Staff has projected F/Y 98-99 rental costs to increase approximately $657,000 if the <br />County pursues the Project. Of that total increase, approximately $291,000 will be <br />supported by the General Fund, and the remaining $366,000 will be supported by non- <br />General Fund departments. This distinction is important in allocating project risk. To <br />this point, the assumption has been that the County would use Certificates of <br />Participation ("COPs")to fund its portion of the Project. Use of COPs typically requires a <br />pledge of the County's General Fund as additional security. Given the cost of the Project, <br />the question arises as to the prudence of creating a contingent liability against the General <br />Fund of this magnitude. Although it requires further exploration, it may be possible to <br />reduce the contingency element by structuring at least part of the County debt as lease <br />revenue bonds, supported entirely by non-General Fund revenues, and without a pledge <br />of the General Fund. <br />The County may elect to maintain the status quo. The increase in space requirements <br />from the current 55,000 square feet to the projected need of 75,000 squaze feet will have <br />to be addressed. As noted above, if annual rental increases over the 25-year study period <br />exceed 4.25%, the cost to the County will be greater than if it had pursued the Project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.