My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Cost Sharing Models
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Cost Sharing Models
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:02:22 AM
Creation date
8/9/2011 10:07:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10080
Title
Cost Sharing Models
Company
WEGroup Report 1993
BLDG Date
1/1/1999
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Design - Planning
Project ID
CS9801 Courthouse Square Construction
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
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
> state and the question of whose money is used to build the <br />> addtional parking will affect this issue. The county needs to <br />> discuss Alternate 2 in mare detail before we approve the <br />> development agreement. <br />I have assumed that Alternate 2 will be funded by the <br />private developer. Shouid some other arrangement be determined to be in <br />the projects best interest, we can amend the development agreement. I <br />don't think the final decision will be made until after the bids are <br />received and the development agreement can't wait that long. <br />> 4. One major cost item does not fit the model. Melvin <br />> Mark's contract is not being shared using any known mode <br />> or farmula. The county pays the largest share. Why? <br />You are right about this, however, the figures shown do <br />comply with the contractual agreement between the County, Transit, and <br />Melvin Mark. The deviation is in the service pravided prior to the time <br />MMDC said the RFP contract kicked in. All expenses under the RFP have <br />been shared in accordance with the cost-sharing model. <br />> 5. Is there going to be a work session with caunty staffto <br />> review the model? Once FTA approves it, we need to live <br />> with the formulas. However, the dollar amounts we pay can <br />> change depending on char~ges in specific construction costs <br />> i.e. concrete, etc. <br />As indicated in the models, we intend to estabiish the <br />base model and cost-sharing with these documents based on the current <br />ACC estimate with the adjustment for removal of the gates. We will make <br />any adjustment necessary from the estimate at the conclusion of CDs, and <br />reconfirm those costs from the bids. We will pay according to the <br />current model until, and unless, some adjustment is made later, in which <br />case we will make an adjustment for costs already paid by each partner. <br />The only reason for the cost-sharing model is to facilitate not having <br />to split up every invoice submitted dwing construction, instead having <br />a pre-determined percentage of every invoice regardless of whether the <br />actuai construction cost could be attributed directly ta one partner or <br />another i.e. bus mall, parking. Adoption of this model and approval by <br />FTA will allow us to reconcile all expenses made to date and get our <br />paying agent process running. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.