Laserfiche WebLink
Item # 14c - Renovation of courthouse & Franklin Building. Staff work is complete on this portion. <br />~ Item # 14d -$1.60 rental rate on expansion space and impact on $1.30 rental rate. Melvin Mark <br />prepared a Speculative Space Rental Rate Sensitivity Report and copies were distributed. Craig <br />Lewis briefly went through report. When the $1.60 rate was lowered, the $1.30 rate was raised <br />to maintain positive cash flow. If rental rate was $1.55, the increase to county rents amounted to <br />7/ 10 of one cent per month. If the rental rate was lowered to $1.50, the increase to county rents <br />would equate to 1.5 cents per month. Billy will submit this report with a supporting cover memo. <br />This is not a substantial issue. Don Palmer will also prepare a short letter to re-iterate his findings <br />that $1.60 is a very achievable rental rate upon completion for speculation space. A copy will be <br />available tomorrow. <br />Item #14e - updated proforma. This is ready to go. Transit also working on a companion product <br />(discussed with item #13) which will be available tomorrow. <br />Item #14f - both boards ~amine personnel needs. Billy said this is simply a"yes" or "no" answer, <br />and felt this item directly related to item #13 economic feasibility and will link them up. There are <br />two letters being drafted from the Board's office. One letter is from the county administrator is <br />complete and one from the board on the efficiencies issue is still in draft stage. The answer would <br />be "yes", but we don't want to quantify it. Sue McCracken will follow up and get a copy of this <br />letter to Billy by tomonow. <br />~ Item #14g - blended interest rate. This will be covered when bond counsel will meet face to face <br />with SPOC. It currently is an all-exempt rate of 5.25%. <br />Item # 14h - impact analysis on county. This is complete and is as close as we can get. John <br />Whittington had concern that the numbers show $218,000 for general fund and about $350,000 for <br />non-general fund so total impact is about $568,000 for county. It did not include the backfill costs <br />for the courthouse. This is the first time the non-general fund has been included. Earlier numbers <br />were conceptual estimates. Now the detail is providing the above figures. <br />Item #15 - lack of accountability in county government. Billy is assuming the county restructure <br />can be used as a partial answer to this question. What information should be provided if we need <br />to respond with written material? Marcia Kelly felt that the boards are taking active roles needs <br />to be outlined. Sue McCracken added that the letter on e~ciencies also referenced the creation of <br />the new department and that letter may address this issue as well. Transit was given an opportunity <br />to comment or ask questions regarding this recent change, but declined to make comments. <br />Item #16 - no work without written contracts. The project is stopped. <br />Items # 17 & 18 - conflicts of interest. Transit district will include their prior policy and the <br />current one passed by the transit board with a cover letter from the transit board. Transit's first <br />policy is a re-iteration of state law. County has nothing in place to address this issue. For time <br />being, county's answer will be to follow existing state law and the moratorium suggested is under <br />~ consideration. <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />