Free Declaration in Support - District Court of California - California

“ Case 4:O7—cv—O2684-CW Document 77-38 Filed O7/24/2008 Page 1 0f2

5 Case 4:O7—cv—O2684-CW Document 77-38 Filed O7/24/2008 Page 2 of 2
From: Simon Rote [/O=COPART/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE
Q _ - GROUP/QN=RECIPYENTS/CN=SEROTE] ‘
{ Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 2:09 PM · .
· To: Heather Luck _ _
' Subject: FW: Facility #105 Hialeah; Hurricane Wilma 2005 destruction of office building
1 · ‘
{ Simon Role
5 . VP of Finance
g Copart Inc. _ a
I _ - 4665 Business Center Dr. ` _ -
3 Falrlield, CA 94534
(707) 639~5Dn9
(866) 41 8-8913 fax _
? - _ .
From: Mme Carson _
' Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:56 PM
¢ To: Vlml Franktln; Simon Rote ·
Subject: Facility #105 Hialeah; Hurricane Wilma 2005 destruction of ollice building
1 ' ,
{ At_your request, I have researched the costs involved with the destruction of our pltices al facility #105 Hialeah, r
3 Florida by Hunicane Vwlma In 2005, and offer the following for your consideration:
1. The building that was destroyed was a "metaI" building built with structurally engineered steel-l—beam
{ · components enclosed by 24 gauge steel roohng and siding. The building waserected on a four foot thick
Q elevated concrete slab and was originally designed to be a lull size trucking terminal with corporate and
{ dispatching ofices. The total square footage of the structure was §,700 square feet. We hadjust tintshed a
E complete gutting and refurbishing of the building approximately sixty (60) days prior to being destroyed by the
- hunlcane. ` `
5 2. Hurricane Vtmma caused 70%-80% total structural devastation ofthe bullcling, to the point that it was
E condemned by Miami-Dade County} and we received a thirty (30) day notice to 'musl demohsh" the structure. l .
Q ` employed a structural engineer to evaluate the building, hoping to save the structure and perhaps rebuild it. but to
t no avail. The building was structurally unsound, and was totally demolished within an immediate time frame alter
receiving the demolition permit, `
3. To start new construction of this sort of structure in the period prior to Hurricane Vthlma, construction costs
¤ would have been approximately $ 115.00 per square foot in the Miami market. Since Vtmma, costs have been
_ · inhaled, and the present rate is $120.00 per square looL This puts the pre—WiIma construction costs ol this
‘ building at S 1,000,500.00, and post-Uwlma at $ 1,044,000.DO. Bear in mind that these costs include a "slandard"
I tenant alice finish build out with interior deniising walls, carpet/tile, doors and hardware, éeihngs, lights, finished
‘ restrooms per Code, such that the project would be 'lumkey" for the Owner or his tenant.
i · 4. These costs do not in clude architectural or engineering fees, impact fees, miscellaneous fees and permit fees.
{ Typical architectural fees might be $4D,000~$50,000.00 for Ihls building, and MEP engineering costs might run
, $20,00o-$zs,o0u.uu. lcannot estimate the estimate tees Miamf—Dade might require, but I would not be surprised ‘
J to pay $25,000·$40,U00.00. lwould estimate permit tees to total S 7,000—$10,0t'l0.00. ‘
= 5. On another tact, IF the building had not been condemned and had not been struclurallypnsound, If we could
· have re-built the building utilizing the existing concrete slab, loan only theorlze based on my examination ofthe
i destruction what it might have cost to rebuild and place the structure and the ollices back into the condition that
1 existed prior to \Mlma's Impact. Please understand that this is not a 'hard" or "tirm" estimate, because l look no c
Q blds to repair the damage before l demolished the building. lplace a valuo on rebuilding the building, restoring
I structural integrity, drying it in, replacing all mechanical, eleclrlcal and plumblng systems, all Extures and re·doin9
S ' the just completed pre-Wilma construction at $95.90 per square fool, or approxlmately $ 626,500.00 to -5
850,00000. My wsumptions are that the concrete foundation would require mtnlmel repair tu the slab and the
I embeds for the steel columns, and that the original architect and manufacturer would be abte to bring the older ·
{ structure into confom1ity_with the most recent BOCA builring codes. These assumptions may not be practical,
t . possible or valid; there is no way to validate them either way. ‘ `
3 _ 6. It we had been, ln fact, able to repair and rebuild this building, and Io do so in conformance with modem
3 codes, we would still have to expense for approximately the same sums for architectural, engineering,
miscellaneous, impact and permit tees.
t.et me know ill can provide any more information. C
I
I
I
.. - Confidential
§ EXHIBIT CPT002140
2 *7 2.
g ( Z GOA

Case 4:07-cv-02684-CW

Document 77-38

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 4:07-cv-02684-CW

Document 77-38

Filed 07/24/2008

Page 2 of 2