My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project Analysis and Feasibility Report (2)
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Project Analysis and Feasibility Report (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2012 4:44:22 PM
Creation date
9/6/2011 10:43:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10308
Title
Project Analysis and Feasibility Report
Company
Gardiner & Glancy LLC
BLDG Date
7/1/1996
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Project Coordination
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.
/
106
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
Costs lssues and Assumptions: <br />Construction costs are estimated by developer at $90/ sq ft <br />Operation and maintenance costs are estimated by developer at $0.33 / sq ft. <br />Site demolition and abatement is estimated by county at $2,450.000 <br />Purchase of 3 parcels on block in private ownership is estimated at $925,000 <br />Interest rates on COP is estimated at 6.5% <br />Estimated cost of 350 parking stalls (above ground) $4,350,000 <br />A reduction of $1,000,000 in cost ta county reduces rent by $.010/sq ft/mo. <br />Should the county pay a residual at end of lease to lower monthly payments? <br />What is appropriate return on investment for developer? <br />What county revenue can be obtained from land leases, net leases, parking? <br />Process: <br />I anticipate asking your financial team to evaluate the project initially without the benefit <br />of the developer's numbers. In effect, your team will act like an independent developer <br />using the data contained herein and other supplemental data as necessary. This <br />process will give me a fresh look at the project without the prejudice that may be <br />developing in my relationship with Mr. Berrey. Then, I will share with Mr. Berrey any <br />new ideas or recommendations you have that may improve his proposal. The final step <br />would be a collaborative process involving the county, Mr. Berrey and your team. This <br />step would refine or modify the final product in a manner that meets the interests of all <br />parties. Your input on this process is welcome and open for discussion at our meeting <br />on the 18th. <br />I have included a summary of Mr. Berrey's original proposal for the project. He has <br />made several modifications based primarily on the fact that the county desired no <br />residual at the end of the lease and updates to the construction and financing costs <br />have also occured. Please call me if you have any further questions. <br />Sincerely <br />Randy Curtis, Director <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.