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 3 <br />years. <br />If the County is to proceed, we strongly recommend ongoing assessment as the Project <br />and costs are refined. In its most basic form, the project/decision model should focus on <br />County, retail and parking costs remaining within budget, the Transit District's costs <br />remaining within confirmed grants and the speculative office/County future growth space <br />meeting stipulated pre-leased minimums. <br />. - - • . , . s .~ - - - - -_ L . <br />to make <br />the Project comparable in long term net present value cost. Earlier we suggested that <br />there may be ways to mitigate the contingent liability to the General Fund caused by the <br />financing of the County's portion. Recognizing that there may be further tax limitation <br />measures instituted in the future, we recommend exploration and resolution of those <br />alternatives as part of the risk management process. Reliance on the General Fund to <br />backstop the full amount of the County's cost will be a challenge and will likely be <br />reflected in a higher cost of capital than otherwise would be the case. <br />As the process continues to refine <br />the Project and related costs, the actual cost to the County may change, but only in <br />response to enhanced County project returns or efficiencies. The development/risk <br />management process should provide both continuing review of the affordability issue and <br />the authority to respond to significant developments. We have relied on Mr. Berrey's <br />"Project Analysis & Feasibility Report" as a starting point for our review and believe his <br />portrayal is fair given the current stage of development of the Project. Much remains to <br />be done in terms of refining the components of the project. Inclusion of office space that <br />would initially be speculative, but in the long run will provide the County growth space <br />should be based on high levels of pre-lease commitments. The pazking element of the <br />Project represents a large cost element without corresponding revenues and should be <br />minimized, to the extent possible. It is our understanding that additional information on <br />that aspect will be available within days. <br />for this analysis to estimate the financial implications of maintaining the status quo, other <br />than to project continued rent increases based on both capital and operating cost <br />increases. As noted earlier, it will not require large increases in annual rental costs to <br />exceed the projected cost of the Project,-- if the County is able to lock in $1.20 for 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.