Cost Sharing Models - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

common area needs would be less, but that the ratio of common area to usable space (21,596/ 127,2? 1 or 0.1697) would be the same. The common areas within the building would total 4,335 (25,548 usable square feet times 0.1697). Without considering the staff parking requirements, the total Transit District building space would be 29,883 (25,548 usable square feet plus 4,335 square feet of common area). The Transit District would occupy a total of 96,70? square feet out of a total block area of 115,513. This results in an occupancy ratio of 83.72%, a percentage substantially greater than the Transit District's 31.29% ownership interest. Thus, the acquisition of an undivided 31.29% ownership interest and joint development with the County is e~remely efficient and justified. If the foregoing comparison were to use a two-story office building, the Transit occupancy ratio would still be greater than 31.29%. With a two story model, the Transit District would have the same total square footage (29,883), but the building footprint would be half the size. Assuming a second floor equivalent to the first floor, the building footprint would be 14,942 square feet. The Transit District occupancy would then be 81,766 square feet out of a total block area of 115,513 square feet, or 70.79%. While the Transit District owns an undivided 31.29% interest in the entire parcel of real estate, the condominium agreement gives the Transit District outright continuing control over all of the space it actually occupies. Conclusion: This analysis confirms the soundness of the investment of funds in the acquisition of an undivided 31.29% ownership interest in the property. It also demonstrates the substantial savings to the Transit District associated with the joint ownership and development of the property. Property Acquisition Courthouse Square 09/04/98 Page - 2