My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOC Files (Folders 1-3)
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
BOC Files (Folders 1-3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2012 4:07:50 PM
Creation date
8/2/2011 3:23:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10068
Title
BOC Files (Folders 1-3)
Company
Marion County
BLDG Date
1/1/1999
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Project Coordination
Project ID
CS9801 Courthouse Square Construction
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
608
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
For Joint Policy Board Meeting of Aprii 22,1998 <br />MEMO TO: THE MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br />THE SALEM AREA TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS <br />FROM: BILLY WASSON <br />" ROJECT COORDINATOR, MARIOM COUNTY <br />JOHN WHITTINGTON <br />PROJECT COORDINATOR, SALEM AREA TRANSIT <br />SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION RE: COURTHOUSE SQUARE <br />Issue <br />Shail the joint Boards authorize staff to move fonward with the Courthouse Square project, <br />speafically to take the steps necessary to proceed to design development and c:onstruction <br />drawings and documentation? <br />Backqround <br />The Courthouse Square project has been under intensive review of the Special Project <br />Oversight Committee for the past four months. The comrYi~tee's assignment was to determine <br />if the project should move forward to the next stage of development, and to make <br />recommendations to the policy boards relative to this question. The committee has completed <br />its charge, and has forwarded a repo~ The county and transit project coordinators have <br />served as staff for the oversight committee, and we have staff recommendations to forward to <br />the policy bodies as well, in keeping with the committee's report. <br />Facts and Findinqs <br />1. We have received the oversight committee's final report. It is what staff would call a <br />consensual report (our phrase, not the committee's). In beginning discussions on the issue <br />of formulating a committee recommendation, Judge Peterson went around the table to ask <br />each member where he or she stood on the question of whether the project should <br />proceed. Four membets said, with various qual'fications, that the project should proceed to <br />the final design and bidding stage of developmerrt. One member said he was not <br />comfortable, with the information that was available, recommending moving ahead at this <br />point in time. And one member said that he did not~ fee! that the project should move <br />ahead, for various reasons. <br />It appeared to staff that the purpose of the committee discussion refeRed to above was to <br />determine what process they would use to proceed to the development of a <br />recommendation and final report to the poiicy boards. They decided that another meeting <br />would be needed to discuss the issues and conclude their report. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.