Cost Sharing Models - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

From: MICHAEL HANSEN To: GWM2.M-MCDCl.BWASSON Date: 10/16/98 12:24pm Subject: Courthouse Square Documents Billy, Ben and I meet at 3:30 today to go over the documents. In think we will manage the intergovernmental development agreement with little difference on final terms. I have some difficulties with the condo declaration and bylaws. The key isues relate to cost sharing for operation, maintenance and repair of common facilities. I know we have agreed to 50-50 on the hearing room. Ben has the parking garage maintained on a 15.5o and 84.5o split based on ownership of the 258 spaces (40 and 218). All other costs(building and streetscape etc) is split 18.5o and 81.5% based on the ratio of useable square footage. No portion of the common costs are attributed to the Hearing Room or Bus Mall. There are different ways to split these costs. Exhibit D, Respective Shares, lists the cost allocation of common space construction costs as 20.07% Transit and 79.93o County for the building. As an alternative, Transit's total share of construction costs, for everything but streetscape is 31.420. WAS THERE ANY UNDERSTANDING OR AGREEMENT THAT ONE OF THESE NiJMBERS WOULD ALSO REPRESENT A SHARE OF THE COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE? It seems to me that common expenses will include the plaza, streetscape and the concrete slab on which the Mall and Office Units are built, and to which the parking garage ceiling is attached. Excluding the Mall completely doesn't seem reasonable because the heavy, exhaust producing, vibration producing buses will put wear and tear on the sidewalks, the concrete slab and the exterior of building walls and ceiling of the parking garage. There should be related operation, repair and maintenance expenses. WAS ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THIS SO THAT I AM FUSSING OVER SOMETHING ALREADY RESOLVED? Finally, I am having trouble with the proposed ground lease that the continuing party would enter with transit/county as landowners in the event the other party terminated because the conditions precedent (financing and bid amount) were not satisfied. Ben's form raises some big questions, such as : l. Where does the county want to be if the county terminates? 2. Where does the county want to be if transit terminates? As I read Ben's proposed lease it is for a term of 75 years. Rent is not paid until the project (te be defined later) is built. Whoever takes on the lease must break ground on the project within 6 months and finish construction within 18 months. The start date is the date a party elects to "continue", which can be no later than February 29, 1999. Practically speaking, I don't see how the county could be a continuing party_ It will take more than a month to define a project and more than six months to break ground given the need to pay off old COPs, sell new COPs, choose and design a project, let bids, etc.