New Search
SMITH Tammv D <br />From: ~ =-CARLSON Becky A _= - <br />Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 4:59 PM <br />To: PETERSON Tish A; SMITH Tammy D <br />Subject: FW: Street Vacation UO Arena <br />Follow Up Flag: Follow up <br />Flag Status: Completed <br />No need to do anything with this--I just wanted you to know the conversation was going on. -bc <br />From: CARLSON Becky A <br />Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 4:56 PM <br />To: SCHOENING Mark A; LANKSTON Jeff <br />Subject: RE: Street Vacation UO Arena <br />M&J, I think this topic of the potential earmarking. of some proceeds from the sale of 858 for PW purposes would good for <br />an initial discussion at DM meeting next week. While this option should definitely be on the table as one potential source <br />of funds for the hub relocate (and perhaps part of a package funding solution), I also see a couple of barriers to this as a <br />"sure fix": <br />1) Timing - It is highly unlikely that 858 sale proceeds would be available in any. reasonable time to be able to fund the hub <br />relocate costs. In fact, Council has not even yet had a discussion or decided whether they would be willing to sell 858 <br />Pearl (although CM informed them that this would be the recommendation). It seems very premature to consider this <br />resource as anything more than a remote possibility... <br />2) Policy around disposition of proceeds -The downtown plan clearly assumes that the sale of general government <br />buildings in core downtown would go back into the Facility Reserve to help fund the replacement/consolidation of all <br />downtown city offices. Yes, there is some precedence for treating costs like this as "preparatory costs for sale of the <br />building", but there is nothing in policy.that would assume we'd get a sympathetic ear in having some of the sale proceeds <br />come back to reimburse the program which put up for this cost. <br />I think the safest strategy is to-make sure the initial funding-for this relocate comes from a source which could sustain not <br />getting reimbursed, and then hope that at the appropriate time we can argue that this cost should be reimbursed from the <br />building sale proceeds. So, strategically, would we rather say the relocate costs were paid from the Road Fund or from the <br />proceeds of the UO alley vacation? The distinction is splitting hairs, I realize.... Also, it is likely that we'll need to establish <br />this relocation expenditure as a capital project because of the dollar amount--has anyone in Facilities talked to you about <br />that? ~becky <br />From: SCHOENING Mark A <br />Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 9:18 AM <br />To: CARLSON Becky A; JONES Eric R <br />Subject: RE: Street Vacation UO Arena <br />~'. Z <br />I believe the full amount should go into the operating budget to help with the pending $2 million deficit. I would like to work <br />-the cost of relocating the transportation-hub into the sale of 858. Crest we are in the hole, but will recover once the project <br />is fully funded. APS is an HRC priority and should be funded by CDBG for the foreseeable future. <br />Mark <br />From: CARLSON Becky A <br />Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:01 PM <br />To: JONES Eric R; SCHOENING Mark A <br />Subject: Fw: Street Vacation UO Arena <br />For your comments and input. I mentioned to Tammy some of the conversation we had today regarding potential use of <br />telecom funds for some of these purposes. ~becky <br />