Laserfiche WebLink
The SPOC report also indicated it nceded more detail on renovations for both the Franklin Building <br />and the Courthouse (item 14c). We will resend the same information that was provided before and <br />~ send it ahead of time to make swe it gets into the record. <br />Item 14d, Is the $1.60 rate achievable? Billy Wasson indicated we would answer from a different <br />point of view. Melvin Mark has been asked to do a sensitivity analysis on the variance of that rate <br />moving. If the market won't bear $1.60, what would every 10 cents generate in terms of the $1. 3 0. <br />Transit will provide additional back up information from Mark Wieprecht regarding two new office <br />buildings opening at $1.50 s.f. now and with 2-3 years inflation, the rate would be at $1. 59/$1.60. <br />Also Palmer's lease study report indicated that the $.160 was not unreasonable. <br />Item 14e, asks for a 10-15 year cash flow analysis on project. Staff was given a copy of a cash flow <br />analysis by Melvin Mark. Craig Lewis walked staff through details of analysis giving explanations <br />of ~pense reimbursement revenues, debt service, and pazking revenues. A part of the computation <br />includes three players, each paying back different amounts into the pool and is more convoluted. <br />To simplify, you should be able to go through the operating expense, remove real property tax line <br />item, include major maintenance and debt service, then you should be able to ply the total rental <br />space and come up with the $1.30. This report will not balance revenues and expenses. The last <br />page bottom line shows net revenue over expenditures for an 8 year period. The intention was not <br />to show revenue for anyone's budget, but to show in year one this is a breakeven project, assuming <br />$1.30 rental, $1.60 spec, and the $9.8 million from transit. There is a vacancy factor of 5%. The <br />report also includes input assumptions, presentation rent role, and loan assumptions to address <br />~ additional questions. This report will be submitted next week with a cover memo from staff to <br />identify the report is in answer to SPOC's item 14e. <br />The issue covered under 3& 14f (cost efficient personnel needs) according to Justice Peterson can <br />be answered "yes" or "no". If "yes", what does assessment consist of? Staff decided this could be <br />answered either way. It is a transitional process not yet completed. The request specifically wants <br />the boards to address this issue. Transit board has decided they will answer this question, not staff. <br />Randy Curtis will write draft giving examples of efficiencies we know about, then point out that <br />process is on-going as you complete space planning design. We are still two yeazs out with the <br />budget process and the finance committee would have fmal say over staffing at that time. This draft <br />will be provided to the board for a written response. This will be an item that will be delivered in <br />the 2"d group of information provided to SPOC. <br />Item 14g is a meeting face to face with bond counsel and we have scheduled a meeting with them <br />to advise them of this request. <br />Items 14h & 13 deals with service impact report. Ken Roudybush handed out a draft copy of a <br />cover memo regarding Impacts on Budgets of Courthouse Square Project to attach to the service <br />impact report that has been completed. Staff reviewed and discussed this document. Billy asked <br />that reference be made to the slow down of hiring that was implemented this week. The document <br />should also reference the size of the general fund. The percentage of general fund should be used <br />instead of wording "diminutive". Also eliminate the word "collaborative" before budget process. <br />~. <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />