My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:47:33 AM
Creation date
9/6/2011 10:03:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10302
Title
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
BLDG Date
8/19/1997
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Committee
Project ID
CS9601 Courthouse Square Research
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.
/
430
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
Mary - added that granting partnership will only occur a.fter the BOC and Transit can vote to grant <br />~, it. <br />Gary Dennison - questioned the role of identifying the developer, neither proposal really met the <br />RFP to a"t" if we cannot come to terms with all the parties, <br />Ra.ndy- we could always go to the other team, but the difficulty remains the element of risk. The <br />quality of the two teams and the advice sta.ffhas received, becoming e~rtremely comfortable that the <br />project is do-able. Role may change and it is possible that the County may take a more active role <br />and their role may diminish, Feels there are some good safeguards <br />Mary - policy makers would be looking for direction from this group. <br />RG reiterated that they aze convinced that it can work. Need to pull the pieces together to make it <br />happen. <br />Richard (9) assistance of bond counsel, where do you look for that. <br />Randy - starting Monday. we need this individual on immediately. Both developers are looking <br />at additional options, need someone paid by the county to weigh those proposals. <br />Bob - what we are looking for today is a decision, recommendation, the BOC and Transit must sign <br />off on it, it is still not a done deal, the process..... <br />Bob Frey, first step <br />Ra.ndy, define the contractual relationships, authorization to look at options , still three months <br />away. <br />Bob - reiterated role...if we can not define a reason this project should be stopped, then we go <br />forward, asked <br />Richard - sees two radically different philosophies. Prudential looks at long term development, <br />SABA looks at the project as a lease purchase, by end of lease term. Prudential shows....also noted <br />that we changed some rules, COP's can play a major role, both developers agreed, but did not share <br />with unknown third parties prior to RFP. Add. very complex project, COP's as asset, other assets <br />that County owns (Franklin Bldg.) could play a major role. Asked if offices in this building would <br />be relocated. Option of selling the Franklin building in part with this project to represent equity <br />portion that the county puts into this project, upon completion, move staff to new facility and <br />Franklin goes to private sector, rented at market rate,...significant element, not on the table. <br />Two teams are well qualified. Prudential not equity capital, SABA have internal capital, implied, <br />reassuring. New things have come on the ta.ble since the proposals were received. Is uncomfortable <br />~ enough that he cannot vote for one or the other. Asked that we go to both developers and ask for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.