Laserfiche WebLink
yield, as an example, one fellow might come in and say. . . I think <br /> that the building needs two and a half million dollars to fix it <br /> up, another individual might say that we need three and a half to <br /> fix it up. Now the fellow who says that he needed two and a <br /> half, that is fine if he underestimated it, assuming that we had <br /> Brademas ' proposal for an example. Assuming he had 30% lower in <br /> rennovation costs than the other proposals, and we looked at it <br /> from the standpoint and said fine, if we can do it, but if there <br /> is an overrun, where is this contingency going to come from? <br /> Where is the profit margin that he projects and if those types of <br /> things were evaluated from proposal to proposal . Because of the <br /> fact that Raker was proposing a concept to handle the building <br /> that was not leased he was not going to lease office space. He <br /> was being approached on a condominium basis where he was going to <br /> sell individual spaces in the building. It created an investment <br /> situation and a return on the dollars and a lack of a need for <br /> someone to finance a substantial portion of the building through <br /> a bank or traditional channels. He could be way off with his <br /> numbers but still have enough margin to make it up. He had the <br /> biggest margin that we looked at and the biggest equity when you <br /> added all those things up. When you added it all up at what the <br /> equity would be in fair market return and property versus what <br /> the costs would be and when you put those different things together <br /> his proposal at the time that we decided to go with him, was <br /> stonger by Brademas ' by a couple, and stronger than the previous <br /> than the #2 guy when we went to the hotel guy. Mr. Raker had <br /> promished that his proposal would be better than anyone we had <br /> previously seen. With the exception of the hotel, and I would say <br /> that the hotel was by far the best. <br /> Mr. Voorde: Okay we are running short of time, but there is one <br /> other thing or facet while we are in the executive session to <br /> bring up, and that is, the location of the TRANSPO terminal . The <br /> newspaper article of November 3rd, quotes Ann Kolata as saying <br /> that this is prior to a closed door meeting between Roger , members <br /> of the Transpo board, and the commissioners, that the terminal <br /> will probably be located on Jefferson. At the meeting it was <br /> determined that the lot would be on Washington Street, and in my <br /> own mind , are the commissioners pushing Transpo to Washington <br /> Street or are you specifically requesting the Washington Street <br /> frontage? I ask this, because I had many people inquire about <br /> this. <br /> Mrs. Kolata: I believe that the context of that article was <br /> written by Ms. Derbeck and she asked me what we were going to be <br /> talking about to determine if Transpo was going to have a terminal <br /> downtown. I said yes, that we would make certain that Transpo <br /> would have a facility in that block . We would determine the <br /> size, location of the block that we were going to designate before <br /> we talked in abstract terms in an executive session. I don't <br /> know the reference to Jefferson Street but I may have commented <br /> on the different proposals that may have been made over the previous <br /> years. <br /> Mr. McMahon: The only thing I can think of is that it had reference <br /> to the proposal that was in the Gruen and Rand Jefferson study. <br /> Mr. Voorde: Does the Redevelopment Commission now feel that <br /> Washington Street frontage is the best use of that particualr <br /> block for the facility? <br /> Mr. Nimtz: There is no secret, I explained to them what Transpo <br /> did in their request which came as a surprise to us. <br /> Mr. McMahon: Transpo has felt for a number of years and dates <br />