Laserfiche WebLink
SECTION C - CONCLUSIONS <br />Taking into consideration all factors ranging from individual project costs to square footage <br />requirements to financial constraints, none of the alteratives are clearly a totally satisfactory <br />solution. In considering Alternatives I, II, and III, to expend $3.3 to $4.5 million with substantial <br />needs still to be addressed, is a major concern from a cost benefit standpoint. Although there are <br />disadvantages with any of the three, II has a greater. potential to be accomplished with the least <br />financial impact. <br />Strictly from the standpoint of project expense and the net square footage gained the School District <br />alternatives (IV and V) appear to be more cost effective. However, the replacement revenues <br />required for the General Fund is a significant budgetary problem. Of the two, Alterative V appears <br />to be more feasible since less replacement revenues would be required and the funds derived from <br />sale of the surplus buildings could be used to off -set some of the project expense. Even though <br />substantial additional financing is required for Alterative VI, staff believes this alterative should <br />not be totally eliminated at this time. <br />Whether any of the alteratives is ultimately financially viable is, in staffs opinion, contingent upon <br />revenue from sale of the surplus buildings in as much as sufficient total project funding is not <br />available. Since actual sale revenue is an unknown factor, it is staffs recommendation that all four <br />be put on the market. <br />However, based on the recent experience with the old Health Department building, prior to <br />advertising, staff proposes to investigate other procedures for marketing the buildings that may <br />produce the desired results. Once a concrete disposition on these buildings is arrived at, we will be <br />in a better position to evaluate which of the alternatives, if any, should be pursued <br />65 <br />MAY 79 1906 BOOK <br />