Laserfiche WebLink
~ stated that it still remains the condo approach, but it's theoretical. He feels that FI A will be more <br />comfortable with the ground being owned by each party. Gordon stated that thi raises issues of <br />how the land is aquired and disposed of. Ben said that we have the same issues hether the la.nd <br />is owned or subject to ground lease. Gordon asked if the FTA wanted perpetur ground rights, <br />which they ca11 continuing control. , <br />Randy responded that the continuing control clause will be phrased one way and ' not allow for <br />any changes. Ben cautioned tha.t we should be careful in how we phrase this. ere are certain <br />things that the FTA will allow for, such as innovative financing. Randy said that h wants them to <br />view this as an innovative project. <br />Mke asked if there is more than one way to ensure the investment. Dan said that thinks we can <br />get there with a condo ageement. The unit owners will be protected, regardless who owns the <br />ground. The benefit of transit owning the ground under their space is that it guazente s the perpetual <br />land agreement. Ben stated that his first choice would be not to have a ground lea e. The second <br />choice would be the ground lease with an option to buy some other piece of the p oject when the <br />lease e~ires. The third choice would be for transit to become an owner of some p of the ground. <br />RG asked if there was a way that the county and tra.nsit could be co-owners. There was discussion <br />around how this could be done. It would have to go to the legislature, which i not practical, <br />considering the time constraints. <br />RG asked if there ha.d been any discussion around the easement and if this impa ted the condo <br />~ agreement. Ben responded that under the lease this would never go away, this onl relates to the <br />section of transit located on the first floor. Randy asked how we could explain to t e FTA that we <br />have an easement here, a condo agreement here and a lease agreement here. ! <br />Dan suggested that it may be advantageous to locate the owners in blocks so that hen you go to <br />the investors and the FTA it is in block sections. There was discussion around the current layout <br />plans. Dan asked how we will define what is common space. Dan e~lained his odel, and the <br />values he has given to the air space and percentages allotted. He e~lained how h came up with <br />the value of space and how he can justify the appraisal on the land and the income approach. He <br />said that he is assuming that the ground floor space is the most valuable. The impr vement value <br />of the land on the ground floor is premium due to the retail space. Using that alysis, transit <br />occupies 74,OOOsf. The block is 150,OOOsf. RG asked if the reason for developing t e value of the <br />space is that the county will sell the space and air rights above the land to the condo a eement. Dan <br />explained that the value is still short. He said that he has an appraisal on the block fo 6million, but <br />transit has not compensated the county for the value of the buildings being re~oved for the <br />development of the project. <br />RG said that the FTA is beginning to understa.nd the condo concept but not the ground I ease concept. <br />Dan said that the problem he encounters is that transit did not condemn the county's p operty. Mike <br />said that his argument is that if they buy the buildings, they buy the land. Ra.ndy exp ained that the <br />board wants to give the public the value of the property they've been paying for. The federal <br />government states that we must treat all the parties fairly. Dan said that his model do s not include <br />~ demolition. It is for land that is ready to be developed. There was discussion ar und how the <br />model can show the cun-ent value of the space that transit is going to use, and pay that o the county, <br />