Laserfiche WebLink
From: "R. G. Andersen-Wyckoff' <WyckoffRG@cherriots.org> <br />To: 'RANDY CURTIS' <RCURTIS@MAIL.OPEN.ORG> <br />Date: 9/25/98 3:04pm <br />Subject: RE: Cost sharing models <br />Randy: Some points of clarification are noted following each issue <br />below. RG <br />> ---------- <br />> From: RANDY CURTIS[SMTP:RCURTIS c~MAIL.OPEN.ORG] <br />> Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 ] 1:19 AM <br />> To: BWasson@MAIL.OPEN.ORG <br />> Cc: DWyant@MAIL.OPEN.ORG; pmitchell@MAIL.OPEN.ORG; <br />> RFranke(c~MAIL.OPEN.ORG <br />> Subject: Cost sharing models <br />> <br />> RG presented the cost sharing models (formulas) at <br />> Thursda_y' DT meeting. These models will be included in the <br />> development agreement. It is important that county staff and <br />> officials understand the formulas, the varibles and the <br />> assumptions that are used. Listed below are some <br />> comments and concerns that the county should be aware of: <br />Actually, John presented them and there was virtually no <br />discussion. The reason for distributing them was to allow team members <br />to review them and ask questions so that a general understanding of the <br />methodology was known by all. <br />> 1. The justification for the current formulas appears to be <br />> well justified based on the current design and BOMA chart. <br />] need to point out that the current BOMA and the square footage <br />used in the ACC estimate are not the same. They must have used a fonner <br />BOMA. I have indicated to Leonard that it is absolutely mandatory that <br />the estimate done at the end of CDs must be the same as the current <br />BOMA. Inconsistencies will certainly be caught by FTA and local <br />pundits. <br />> 2. Changes in the streetscape funding should not affect the <br />> formula unless the county and transit agree to pick up costs <br />> not funded with urban renewal dollars. <br />Though the cost-sharing model anticipates that the <br />streetscape is a cost-neutral item, should the development team <br />determine that we need to do something beyond that which is city funded, <br />and the two policy boards a~ree, streetscape is assumed to be covered by <br />the "acquisition formula" not the "cost allocation formula," because it <br />relates to the ownership of the block not the construction. <br />> 3. The decision to build the 66 parking spaces (alt # 2) could <br />> change the cost sharing formula. Monday's meeting with the <br />