My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Financial- Marion Co. Department Relocation
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Financial- Marion Co. Department Relocation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2012 3:04:51 PM
Creation date
8/30/2011 2:28:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10198
Title
Financial- Marion Co. Department Relocation
Company
Marion County
BLDG Date
1/1/1999
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Finance
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.
/
448
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
06;091199f 16:1~ 50~-297-2E~5 <br />~ ~ ~ <br />~ <br />Hanna, McEldowney & Associates <br />8835 S.W. Canyoa Lane, Sulte dOS <br />Portland, OR 9'7225 <br />TEL No.: (503) 297-9588 FAX No.: (503) 29~-2d~ <br />~ <br />~ ~'~ ~ <br />!%, <br />DA1'E: June 9, 1997 <br />H~NNA MCELDOWNE'Y <br />FAX MEMO SHEET <br />TO: Elyn Lyon (fax ~: 588-5495} <br />FROM: Roger Hanna <br />~~ . <br />~, . ~ <br />?:~, ..s <br />`s`s <br />~, <br />P~6E 01 <br />SU$TECT: Marion County/Transit Authority Agreement of Relocation Benefits <br />This memo is to foliow up our telephone conversation regarding the need ta determine what <br />agreement(s) were made by Marion County ar~d the Transit Authority prior to initiation of the <br />Court House Square project. <br />I am raising this issue now because of telephone conversadons I had last week with ODOT artd <br />Federal Highway personnel regarding relocation benefits for public agencies. These discussions <br />can be summariud as follows: <br />1) Public agencies are not specifically included in the Federal 1970 Act (non-profit <br />organizations are}. Therefore, the determination of benefits for pubiic agencies is <br />samewhat problematic. <br />2) Both ODOT and Federal Highway personnel idendfied "moving expenses" and che <br />"search far a replacement site" (limit S1,000) as legidmate relocaaon expenses but they <br />would generally disallow the "In Lieu" and the "reestablishment expense" . Further, they <br />believe that the moving expenses allowance is only for a single move and they would <br />therefore disailaw the cast of moving public agencies back into Court House Square after <br />its completion. <br />3) 4n the other hand, neither of the two parcies I consulted knew of any actual case that <br />involved a decision regarding relocation benefits for public agencies. As a cansultant for <br />Washington County, we made che decision that a state agency would be entided to the <br />reestablishment expense up to the 510,000 limit in the 1970 Act. <br />In order to determine what constitutes a valid relocation expense, it is first necessary to review <br />the agreements between: (a) the Marion County Transit Authority and the FTA to determine <br />what the intent or understanding was regarding reimbursement of relocation expenses; (b) <br />Marion County and the Marion County Transit Authority regarding their understanding, if any, <br />as to what wouid be included for cost sharing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.