Laserfiche WebLink
> 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 />