My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/10/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
7/10/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:45 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 9:10:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/10/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Flick advised these notes will be reduced to typing and <br />a master contract prepared for the real estate associated. As <br />Mr. Schlitt mentioned, the real estate not under their direct <br />control is the Hatch property (Lot 3, Block 45) and the City - <br />owned property of about 13,000 sq. ft. on the southwest corner of <br />Block 46. Mr. Flick noted that this cannot be purchased <br />privately by him from the City, but if the County can't work out <br />some arrangement for an exchange or whatever, he believed it is <br />possible to work around that property. He continued that the <br />total square footage under the control of Vero Development is <br />133,875 sq. ft. with an approximate cost of 3.2 million. That <br />price takes care of the real estate associated with their <br />proposal and the tenancy associated with it. <br />Mr. Flick agreed there should be some surface parking around <br />the building, and his particular presentation has 56 surface <br />parking spaces in front of the judicial complex. He pointed out <br />that his proposal includes selling all the parking support for <br />the Florida Federal Building, and he proposes to negotiate and <br />replace that with the 4 lots owned by Mr. Brackett. His tenta- <br />tive budget is 18 million. <br />Mr. Flick then reviewed the following figures showing what <br />the net effect of the Vero Development Company's proposal means <br />to the taxpayers: <br />JUL 10100 0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.