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
MEMORANDUM <br />DATE: March 18, 1998 <br />%:~('~. <br />FROM: Ken Roudybush, County Administrator <br />TO: Marion County Commissioners <br />RE: Impacts on County Budgets of Courthouse Square Project <br />My office has worked closely with the county General Services Department to calc <br />additional rental costs of moving county departments to the anticipated Courthouse <br />building (please see Attachment A ). <br />Our analysis indicates that at $1.30 per SF, the general fund will incur an additic <br />in annual rental costs as a result of moving to Courthouse Square. My study did <br />costs appearing in the Melvin Mark Company pro-forma; i.e., moving expenses. <br />a worst case scenario. Our project development team believes that it may yet red <br />footage costs to an amount less than $1.30 per SF. <br />Under these conditions, the non-general fund departments will incur an additional <br />rental costs. <br />Assuming that the Courthouse Squaze project continues, the building will be ready <br />occupation in FY 2000/2001. Therefore, additional costs to both general and non-g <br />will not be incurred until the 2000/2001 fiscal year. <br />As the county's budget officer, I have reviewed the county's total revenues and I a~ <br />process of reviewing county expenditures for the upcoming fiscal years as shown i <br />Attachment B. I have charted the expenses and revenues of the county's FY 96/97 <br />budgets, and show the FY 98/99 expected revenues. Please note that the projected <br />Staff and `Budgeted $' column (shaded) for FY98/99 is a duplication of the prior <br />My example is merely to illustrate all of the different departments and category fiu <br />which will need to be negotiated through the budget process. Some departments a <br />departmental categories may not change, others may increase and some may decre <br />budget for FY98/99 cannot be stated until the budget is adopted by the Board of ( <br />in June of 1998. <br />I have illustrated past significant budget reductions which the county has weathere <br />the impact of Ballot Measure 5 and Ballot Measure 50, which resulted in losses of <br />and $5,446,262 respectively. These losses primarily impacted the Marion County ~ <br />~ To overcome these financial challenges, we balanced our budgets through a proce~ <br />collaboration, strategies and decision making. <br />the <br />$235,569 <br />include <br />s represents <br />the square <br />395,757 in <br />funds <br />in the <br />FY97/98 <br />cai year. <br />ng levels <br />some non- <br />. The final <br />including <br />Z,655,000 <br />neral fund. <br />of group <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.