Laserfiche WebLink
Marion County - <br />Initial Pir.dings and Recommen~atio~s-Cou~ thou;e Syuare °roject <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, we recommend that the County proceed with the Project, using a <br />disciplined process to constrain project costs while achieving the core project objectives. <br />At the core of this project is its affordability to the County. The first question is whether <br />the County can afford an increase in per square foot rental from the proiected $.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. The cost of capital is <br />conservatively projected to be 6.50% and we assume an O&M inflation rate of 4.25%. <br />This demonstrates that if annual rents under the status quo rise at 4.25% or more over the <br />25-year term, the Project will be the more economical alternative. 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 *ental costs #o 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 tv the projected need of 75,000 square 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 />