Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)

Home Browse Search

Streetscape Dave prepared a new streetscape budget comparing costs of parking options #2 and #3. How is ~ streetscape being handled with respect to separation between base 6uilding and what is being charged to streetscape? The city will only pay for what they can see, not anything below. NIlVIDC was referred to an earlier supplied document dated February or Mazch, that shows pretty much what elements are included in the streetscape budget. The city has been told that we are trying to refine those costs. Parking Parking Option #2 has 363 parking spaces and Option #3 has 324 spaces. Option #3 has smaller parking available. The city hasn't heard about this option and it may be a compromise solution. County is not opposed to 324 spaces by going out to curb on 2 sides rather than 4, but it will depend on what Rick can do with e~usting parking structure at the courthouse. The three options we aze looking at are: one option has to relocate sheer walls; second option has no changes in sheer walls; and third option uses only two sides to curb with smaller number of spaces. Rick hasn't provided any input to date. The 3rd option has removed the drive aisle and lane parking on High Street. With Court and High not into the street allowance, this makes life easier for Dave. Efficiency rating on 324 spaces at 367 square feet of space. Efficiency on 363 spaces at 379.8 square feet of space. 324 has the best efficiency. Dan P. stated efficiency is one thing, but marginal cost is far more important to NIlVIDC. If extra 50 spaces a.re only $3,000, we need to build it regardless of so-called efficiency. ~ In this estimate, all footings to support building were folded into the parking garage so they would be in one place. We are looking at huge sheer wall footings with 650,000 pounds of rebar. By removing $2,300 per stall costs for sheer wall footings, it puts cost per stall back into $13-14,000 range. Were footings handled the same way in all previous parking layouts? No. Discussion followed in how previous options handled the costs of footings and where they were placed. Some may have been put into the shell costs. Need to have documentation for apples to apples comparison to see if we are at a costs savings with P 1. Dave will rework the numbers in order to compare, we need same assumptions made. Using option #3, what is difference between this option and when we had P2, what is total differential? Answer was not known. Dave didn't know if excavation costs ($1 million) were in numbers on P2. Dave was asked if he could pull out costs for sheer walls and how it applies across the structure. If other option of rigid frame works architecturally it is better for Leonard. Dave will redo numbers for equal comparison. If the average cost is the same, it will depend on number you want and if you have the dollars to spend. Discussion continued on different aspects of how numbers were generated, and if we will see a decrease in costs on the project. It was recommended that Dave and Leonard work with Mike to see if it makes sense to continue with sheer wall approach or switch to a rigid frame. Additional discussion and rough calculations were made to see if switching to a rigid frame would save dollars on the project. At first glance, it could be savings of as much as $500,000. Mike is out of the office until Monday. The real key is to look at all spin-off costs. Leonard will set up meeting with Mike for Tuesday and Dave will have Curt attend in his absence to avoid any further delays. ~ Streetscape The discussions went back to streetscape and making sure a contingency is put in and still keep under $2 million allocation. The budget doesn't appear to have a lot of soft costs? The Page 7 of 9