Laserfiche WebLink
03i13i9g 13:02 $50~5888526 CORRECTIONS VI'C ~~~ PERSONNEL (~006/009 <br />There is no evidence that the area designated for private <br />development will actually work for the proposed use. Will the <br />remaining parcel configuration cause potentiai development problems <br />or limitations that will affect future development? eow do the <br />parties know that the north end of the block will be attractive to <br />outside tenants? <br />/ b. SPOC requires that a stronger demonstration be made that <br />an assumed rate of $1.30 ft/mo will satisfy actual operat~ng <br />expenses cutrently planned to be met by the $0.284/ft/mo <br />allocation. <br />v <br />--Specifically, do~s 5.09 ft/mo for custodial expenses reflect ~ <br />current county costs? ,,o,z ~i~""~~ <br />.- - <br />--What is covered by the personnel figure of 5.025/ft/mo? How <br />are the cost of management and ~easing expenses going to bE met and <br />have they been included? <br />--What is the \cancy factor, and how is i.t reflected in the <br />cost ft/mo? - <br />--Have provisions been made for reserves3 Should provisions <br />be made fot reserves? Also, is the category maior mainte.nance <br />synonymous with capital reserves? -~ <br />--Can the county and transit demonstrate that the figure of <br />$.016 ft/mo is adequate? <br />--Does the $1.30 ft/mo include any debt servic~? <br />--Have landscaping, security, outside maintenance and common ~~ <br />area costs been included? SPOC is concerned that all operati.ng ~,~" <br />G <br />costs have not been included in prior submissions. <br />4 <br />