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
_ , lc~i~iy~ <br />~. ' - <br />11:Uy c~sus 5~~ b4yb -iuniAN <br />' <br />- Creneral questions and discussion; ~n order to be a COP if has to be a lease purchase and it has to pay <br />off the entire purchase. 'The state st~uctures it ~t the~'v`~°n the title aad walk away with ownership. <br />~~ If the public does not own it then you do not have a COP. You can arrange the COP to be taxable <br />and non- taxable. What you are laying on the table is the cost of taxable and non taxable. <br />Bob asked if we wanted a discussion or do we want to make the selection or do we want to address <br />~ the issue of this is do-able? He asked how important it is to the County that we come out with <br />ownership of the building. <br />' Randy and Gary responded that it is important. And it is still of interes~ RG stated that he <br />understood of Randy to have said that we would consider using the Franklin bldg. <br />~ Ra.nd agreed an until Dan mentioned it, Randy finds it truly to the county's benefit to have <br />y <br />ownetship and these ass~s. This raises new questions that have to be addressed. The vatue of the <br />i building for law fums with on site patl~ing <br />David re~ponded that he doesn't sce either of thesc proposals meeting the needs of County and <br />, Transit Neither of the proposals present ownership or invested interest. David suggested that we <br />list what the relative assets of all the parties are and see what we have. ff we can bring that to the <br />party, there is no reason to ask others to take the risk We could join up with someone w o ~s <br />, willing to take the risk in managing tiie reta,il apace. For the pubLc tlus ~s a much bc~ttear use or <br />money_ <br />,~ Richard added that it became very evident to him that this is a real advantage to look at the assets <br />and see how we can manage them. We do not need a private partner, especially one who is not <br />~ willing to make a commitment Whai would benefit this project is bond counsel. and he suggest we <br />are premature in making a selection. <br />' Gary asked Randy to explain the time sensitive issues of the transit district. <br />RG explained that they must have a plan submitted by Sept. or they lose the lst million. RG agrees <br />' we can still follow these suggestions and still have time to make an informed decision. <br />Gary questioned/suggested that SABA is basically a ttunkey operation. The second presentation <br />' shows that they haven't got the package ready. H'is question is still how can we go with either and <br />have a plan in place by the dea.dline. <br />' Ed Martin asked if the transit district and the couaty were to build it themselves who would pay the <br />construction costs. <br />' Randy responded that you would need to hire a construction management fum. The county has <br />equity in the project but he dcesa't know~vhat tranait would put up to help with these upfront costs. <br />~ Maynard stated that you can capture the expenses and costs and pay it to yourself out front. <br />r ~- <br />, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.