One of the most frustrating parts of following the Grandview Yard story has been the lack of specific numbers on the costs of the public funding for specific elements of the development. Finally – after more than a year – some numbers have been put up. These economic projections, provided by Nationwide, may be worthless as the ever changing development plans are modified, and the political process to find the money continues, but at least we have something.

As reported in the March 11, 2009 TWG article, these numbers were presented to the Grandview Heights City Council's economic development committee: A total of 1.1-million square feet of office space; 450,000 square feet of retail space and 475 residential units. Private investment is expected to total $500-million.

Back in December of 2007 the numbers were: Commercial space – 1.5 to 2 million square feet. Residential units – 600 to 800, with up to 2000 new residents (increasing the population of Grandview up to 25%). Private investment – $900 million. This indicates a shrinking Yard, and smaller investment.

The public investment is projected at $119 million. That use to be $160M. The on-site costs include $10.22-million for public right of way acquisition; $4-million for parks; $18.48-million for streets; $19.68-million for utilities; and $25 million for parking.

The off-site projects are the railroad bridges at a cost of $21.6-million; widening Goodale for about $8-million; widening Third Avenue, about $5-million; widening Olentangy River Road, $2.56-million; road work on Northwest Boulevard, $2.65-million; and widening the 315 ramp, $1.66-million.

That's a total of $41.6 million for roads and bridges that are mostly in the city of Columbus. Compare that to the $53 M that was the total cost of the public funding for the Area District. Do you now understand why this will be a nightmare to work out with Columbus?

This is what the article said about the schools: “The city has negotiated that the developer will maintain the property tax to the school district and maintain that base, which will total about $39-million over 30 years. The school district will get an annual payment of 10 percent of the new property tax ahead of the bond, lending holders, estimated at an additional $37-million over 30 years.”

I don't quite understand what that means, I suspect there was some mis-translation in the reporting, but I think that means that the schools will not be screwed. Still missing from projections is the number of school age children to be expected in G.Y., so any guess about the effect on the schools is pure speculation.

The article gave assumptions on income tax revenue, most of which is so speculative it's not worth commenting on. This line, however, was said by the Mayor: “The goal, however, is not to use income tax revenue to pay the cost of off-site improvements.” Yes, that's a good goal. I'd also like to have the goal of lower taxes and free health care. I think the Mayor and I will both be disappointed.

When the article mentioned the start of the project this year, it quoted Steve Reynolds saying “The developer is looking to show the project will happen and hopefully that will generate more interest." OK. If the economy doesn't improve, this will be a really, really big hope.