My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Northblock- RFD Drafts
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Northblock- RFD Drafts
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2012 4:30:46 PM
Creation date
8/16/2011 3:54:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10260
Title
Northblock- RFD Drafts
BLDG Date
1/1/1999
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Project Coordination
Project ID
CS9801 Courthouse Square Construction
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
., <br />John Whittington <br />April 1, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br />,,,,. will enhance the effectiveness of tl~e Mass Transit Project and identify how the non-transit elements are <br />physically or functionally related to the Mass Transit Project. The RFP should clearly disclose that the <br />approval of the development is subject to FTA approval under the joint development policies. The <br />development agreement must include a legally enforceable arrangement between the Transit System and <br />the developer, which preserves the defined physical or functional relaUonship between the development <br />and the Transit Facility ("continuing control"). The proposal must demonstrate that it will generate a <br />revenue stream to Transit, the present value of which is equal to either the current market value or the <br />appraised value of the property, taking the tughest and best transit use into account. The proposal <br />should address travel time between the jomt develapment and transit facility, reasonable access between <br />the develoQmeni and the transit facility, trip generation rates of the proposed development, and the <br />transit system's share of those trips. Walking distances between the transrt faciliry and the development <br />should be identified. <br />The proposal should include a market and financial assessment of the development and its <br />impact on the transit system, and documentation of the projected benefits for the transit system. <br />When the proposal is selected and submitted to FTA, FTA will require a copy of the Joint <br />Development Agreement, or other contractural artangement with the developer, the market and financial <br />assessment of the development and its impact on the transit system, a statement of the outcome of <br />planning and coordination between the development and the transit facility, and documentation of the <br />projected benefits for the transit system, as well as the effective continuing control of the development <br />for transit purposes. <br />The RFP should also disclose that the FTA must deiermine whether and to what extent the <br />various Federal rules will apply to the privately-funded, non-transit portion of the project. The <br />applicability of the Federal requirements will be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, unless <br />FTA determines otherwise, all of the FTA contract clauses will apply to the private development. <br />With that background, I have a handful of specific comments. First, I recommend that the <br />correct name of the Transit District, The Salem Area Mass Transit District, be used instead of Salem <br />Transit District. In the third paragraph on page 1, the words "as part of a condominium agreement" <br />should be deleted. The next sentence refers to a 50-year land lease, and I am not sure if that has been <br />agreed to. <br />In the second to the last paragraph on page 1, the first sentence refers to a partnership including <br />the FTA. The reference to FTA should be deleted. <br />On the second page, in secrion III 1, the RFP should explicitly describe the criteria for joiret <br />development under the FTA policy. Similarly, in section III 2, the restriction on allowed uses pursuant <br />to the continuing control requirement should be described. On the top of Qage 3, paragraph c, should <br />state that uses must be physically or functionally related to the mass transit project, within the meaning <br />of the FTA joint development policy. <br />There is a typo in paragraph N on page 3, the word "min" should be "mir-d." <br />The third paragraph frorn the bottom of page 3 relating to design flexibility should identify the <br />constraint that the development must be physically or functionaily related to [he transit mall. In the next <br />paragraph relating to access, it should provide that the development may not impede or impair access to <br />the transit facility. On the other hand, it may be necessary to descnbe the transit facility's need to <br />imQede or impair access for security reasons. <br />On page 4, the evaluation criteria, as I have indicated above, needs to be all-inclusive, and <br />needs to identify the relative importance. With regard to proposed business terms, the RFP will need to <br />require proposers to provide all of the information required under the FTA joint development policies, <br />including an analysis of the present value of all revenues and the market value or appraised value of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.