Laserfiche WebLink
Maybe we need to back into this equation. If $1.20 is our base to work with, given our known <br />circumstances, what can we truly afford. How many square feet does that yield? We have to <br />~ be able to pull off transit and see if the project is truly viable for future needs. RG has <br />frustrations with the architect in not being able to design what we can afford to build, but <br />sympathizes on the other hand that we haven't been able to tell them what we can afford. <br />County could get by with 225 stalls on site for their needs, this would include transits <br />requirements as well. County wouldn't need the surface spaces, but based on the costs of <br />surface parking, it is a wise move to make. County would like to reserve the option to sell off <br />this portion. We could use the surface parking to lease out. Our first priority should be getting <br />in budget and meeting the retail component of getting the property back on the tax rolls. <br />Working from the 315-6 spaces in the parking structure, by removing 66, county would have an <br />additiona130 spaces over their needs of 225, which includes transit's 40 space requirement. <br />Randy posed the question of an outside developer coming into the project after the modified <br />parking structure is built and would like to expand underground at their expense, could we create <br />a master design engineered for expansion? When we go out for RFP on this retail section we <br />want to offer as many options as we can. One would the above scenario, second would be the <br />downtown parking association, and third would be a partnership with county in exchange for <br />extra parking spaces. We want flexibility in our acceptance or rejection of a proposal. <br />Discussion followed and this would introduce inefficiencies to the design. Also it would be <br />~ difficult to find a private developer to pay for expansion of parking up front. County would <br />have to fund the full structure and then find a developer who could step in and reimburse for <br />funds. A more attractive scenario would be to have surface parking available on the north side <br />or opt to sell the retail pad area. Most developers would go for the downtown parking plan as a <br />much cheaper option. Also getting 2/1000 parking for retail is not a bad way to go either. <br />Randy has been using 3/1000 in previous estimates. Business lives with what is here and the <br />transit system is another option. <br />Dave was asked what would it save us on the changes on the parking structure. It would depend <br />on what you use to figure the per stall cost. Based on the last estimate from Dave the parking <br />structure was at $2.47 million. We could possibly be looking at $1 million in savings. <br />The question is we may or may not have a problem, depending if true costs of transit are in <br />line. How do we deal with it? Craig responded that transit budget has elements that can be <br />squeezed. <br />Another area Randy explored was adding new revenue to the project. County is looking at <br />moving all tenants currently in the Franklin building into the project. Their current needs would <br />be 25,000 square feet based on usable space. That would bring county's total needs up to <br />77,000 square feet. There is a spread of 30 cents per square foot between what county pays and <br />the market value. That could produce about $90,000 a year profit from leasing out the Franklin <br />building that can come back to this project. Ken responded it would only amount to a penny <br />~ Page 2 of 7 <br />