Read it yourself
The city attorney's memo that explains why the City of Portland needn't put another nickel into the OHSU aerial tram [rim shot] has been posted on the internet. It's here. A beautiful document.
| Posted at 5:00 PM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on February 10, 2006 5:00 PM.
The previous post in this blog was One shoe dropping.
The next post in this blog is Ding dong.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (3)
This from Commissioner Adams in this morning's OregOnion:
"In our first round of negotiations, I learned that the city could reduce fees to save OHSU $2.5 million. Those savings, along with the $5 million the PDC has already provided to OHSU, fortifies my belief that the remaining tram budget gap should be funded by OHSU and the property owners."
If that's the Commissioner's idea of how the city puts no more money into the project funding, then I guess it won't be a difficult negotiation. I can hear him now: "Take it, or take it."
Posted by Allan L. | February 10, 2006 5:14 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but...
As I read it the City DOES have some risk:
1) If they keep building without some kind of further agreement, they are on the hook for anything above $40M.
2) If they stop, they can kiss the LID payment goodbye, but that's the limit of their liability.
According to some of the documents Jim Karlock was kind enough to scan and post, it looks like the LID is $31M. But perhaps that includes some funds that OHSU is mandated to pay under other agreements regardless?
Seems like everyone has something to lose.
Am I reading it correctly?
Posted by Chris Smith | February 10, 2006 6:15 PM
Interesting comments Chris.
>"According to some of the documents Jim Karlock was kind enough to scan and post"Interesting comments Chris.
>"According to some of the documents Jim Karlock was kind enough to scan and post"
Perhaps you feel Jim is now kind enough for you remove the ban from your blog you have on him?
Posted by I'm banned too | February 10, 2006 8:21 PM