Laserfiche WebLink
1. Budget Status <br />5. Ancillary Costs <br />A draft copy of project budget status summary was handed out. Two similar budgets have been <br />prepared: one with combined budget sta.tus summary and a second with ancillary costs (remodeling <br />the courthouse and Franklin Building). The ancillary costs budget has the "red" headings on it. <br />Billy Wasson feels that these ancillary costs should be pulled out and reported on a separate sheet <br />and not reported in this fashion. <br />Issues and questions regarding what should or should not be included in the ancillary costs were <br />discussed: <br />1. Use of parking revenue to pay back debt service, but not using it for construction costs. <br />2. Ground leases should be the same as parking, you can't use one and not the other. <br />3. What portion of parking fee is also included in debt service. <br />4. Breakout on 1.30/sf shows expense side, need another sheet to show revenues to cover debt <br />service and other possible revenue sources available (policy decision). <br />This area will be a major topic ne~rt week and all staff needs to hear and understand the answers <br />from Melvin Mark. Ra.ndy Cuttis will alert Craig Lewis to these questions so they will be prepared <br />to answer them ne~rt Thursday. Once the new proforma is presented next week and reviewed by <br />staff, a decision will be made as to its presentation to SPOC. Clarification was made on other <br />issues raised during budget conference call with Melvin Mark including repayment of solid waste <br />loan as expense, county-in relocation of $211,000 only expense included and legal costs where some <br />expense have already been covered by another revenue source . <br />Sheryl had questions on the revenue portions that could change the bottom line numbers. Interest <br />on page 2 of the revenue sheet showing $1.5 million should be removed according to information <br />received from Melvin Mark. Concern was expressed over the treatment this item received by both <br />Melvin Mark and bond counsel. The interest we earn during the life of the construction project <br />($1.5 million) minus the interest we pay for the bonds ($2.5 million) equates to the net difference <br />of a capitalized expense of $1.34 million according to Melvin Mark. This is a major issue and staff <br />would feel more comfortable with Ralph Grim, Treasurer, becoming more involved in these <br />discussions. <br />Another issue in the ancillary costs on the revenue side showed county charging a fee of $40/stall <br />and transit using $50/stall. Randy Curtis explained that he anived at a blended rate of $40/stall <br />charge some time ago, because the county does not have a uniform rate in parking and some <br />concessions have been made for other departments. We were also looking at some visitor parking <br />in the basement of the new building when this cost was first generated. After discussion, it was <br />decided that the budget would reflect the same $50/sta11 fee for both county and transit for revenues. <br />Billy Wasson went through the budget by line item. Under A/E Fees, Arbuckle Costic's number <br />will go down, but we haven't confirmed the amount yet. Transit had $97,300 as Other for 28% <br />building commissioning and other consultants that would be unique for transit's use. Staff <br />Page -1 of 6 <br />