Transit- Meeting Agenda (12/18/1997)

Home Browse Search

4• Any parly providing work to the project~should have a contractual agfeement in p(ace - ~ before the onset of work. The scope, timing, and remuneration of work should be w~ clearly defined. ~ 5. When Phase II drawings aze completed, a reassessment of the project should occur after working pl2ns have been put to competitive bid with general contractors and other subcontractors. Concluding remarks: On August 21, 1996, the Chamber of Commerce came before the County Commissioners and stated our support for the Courthouse Square concept. This project is compatible, as was stated then, with the master core plan for downtown. We also were supportive of partnership efforts between government entities that woula enhance opporluniaes for more efficient operations thereby benefitting the citizens of Salem and Marion County. While the public has raised questions about the siting of the projeet at the current location, the Task Force did not debate the merits or drawbacks of this location. The process used to decide to build at the current site was indeed an open and public process. It was a deeision supported by many groups including the Statesman Journal. It is inconceivable and irresponsible to scrap the project with the time and money invested to this point. The Chamber of Commerce will not back away from our original statement of support for the idea. We will also not back away from our statement that parking was our greatest concern. Over a year ago, we stated that ". .. the fact remains that limited pazking in downtown is a problem that needs to be addressed ... Exploring the possibility of some economies of scale by engaging another partner and const~ucting more paricing during the construction of Courthouse Square would be wise." For the Chamber's continued support this now must be done. While we feel strongly that dreams and ideas should never be ridiculed in hindsight or discouraged in concept, we have been disappointed with the mistakes made. We are frustrated by the inability to rely upon aay one set of numbers or assumptions in attalyzing the feasibility of the proposed pmject While some changes always occur in any development project, we believe some mistakes could have and should ha.ve beea avoided had the appropriate checks and balances process not been circumvented. At this time, if the County is able to implement the steps necessary to restore public confidence and ownerslup, the Task Force believes that it is prudent for tfie County to proceed with Phase II. Following the completion of Phase II, the Couaty should pause aad again reassess the project. 46