My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Question and Answers to Issues Courthouse Square
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Question and Answers to Issues Courthouse Square
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:48:22 AM
Creation date
9/6/2011 10:10:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10326
Title
Question and Answers to Issues Courthouse Square
Company
Transit Board
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Committee
Project ID
CS9601 Courthouse Square Research
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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
. , 1J,/17/97 11:U5 $503 588 5495 HUAIAN K~SUUKC~S 1~004 <br />' ~ , <br />' <br />t ~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />i_ I <br />have applied for additiona13.7 million in a federal grant The biggest piece of that is to do the demolition <br />and site preparation on the block. That wiil substantially reduce the private developers cost in the project <br />We think (Randy and RG) that even without the federal grant, the project probably is feasible, probably , <br />borderline. But with the federal grant this project is a go. In addition, we are hoping to obtain 1 to 2 <br />million for the ciry in urban renewal money. The city has given tentative support for that. That is really <br />another partnerslup. There are really five parties who have financial interest and commitment. <br />Randy continued by stating that next week we are really just selecting that final partner. Selecting that <br />partner in no way guarantees this project will work Right now the County owns its buildings. C~rrent rate <br />of rent on County buildings is $.85 a foo~ Market rate is $1.20 -$1.40. It is critical that we work with the <br />developer to get the cost down. If the project raquires that the County pay the market rate, it will not work. <br />If it's an extravagant building, the County will not be able to afford it He has projected to the County budget <br />officer that this project will cost an additional $250, 000 - 5300,000 annually in new money, starting in 1999, <br />just to afford the new space. T1~at means we ~ave to start looking three years ahead and the County budget <br />committee nceds to decida if we can make that commitment These are some of the things that we wanted <br />the panel to be aware of. <br />Bob Speclanan asked Randy if in a partnership, the County will always own the Iand, but the building will <br />be owned by the deveioper, and the County lease fees will be just on their building space. <br />RG responded that Transit will own their space outrigh~ <br />Randy responded that there is value in the land lease that is a credit back to the County and the developer <br />ends up owning the retail space: The land always stays in public ownership. <br />.,~ RG clarified that it may or may not be the County, it may be a combination of Transit and the County. The <br />square footage that is private use will pay taxes, from day one, even the portion that will eventually be the <br />County's. <br />~ Bob suggested that this is another way to buy down the square footage cost. <br />Randy added that even if the land and the entire building was in private ownership, as with the City of <br />' Salem, any portion of the public buildings, including the pazldng structure, as long as you are leasing it for <br />profit, it is on the tax roles. It is primarily the use of the property deterinines. <br />~ Dick question that a$.80 a square foot, is this building going to have a roof? <br />Randy responded that he doesn't expect to get it at $.80 a square foot. <br />~ There was discussion of proposals, the preliminary esrimates of where we could run into problems. Randy <br />pointed out that the Prudential proposal provided more deta.ils and options. David Glennie stated that he <br />~ did not see where they provided for ownership. <br />~ Randy expressed his understanding that tl~ere would be lease back,.as the project is better defined. Based <br />on the phone calls he has been receiving, without knowing who the parties are representing, it souads like <br />there would be at least partial ownezship. These are some of the issues that should be raised dunng the <br />~ selectiori process and should be part of the agreement <br />" Raady Franke added, in regards to the cost of space, the panel should keep in mind that for the County it <br />~ is not an evaluation of what we are currently paying. The Board is required to provide adequate room for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.