Laserfiche WebLink
RG went through calculation and using old square footage numbers identified transit was about <br />$300,000 over budget. They have been able to add another $500,000 to their budget, which <br />~ should put them $200,000 under budget, but he needs to know if this is a real expectation. <br />Transit needs to see the square footage on the new floor design. There could be some savings in <br />moving 3300 square feet of transit expansion space from the upper floors to ground level. <br />MNIDC can do soft costs. Dave has no problem with working on bus mall, parking structure <br />and office building. The missing component would be the modified parking structure. <br />County expressed concern in selling off the retail portion of the block and wants to continue to <br />look at the joint partnership. We could lose more trying to sell it. We don't want to give <br />money back to FTA. If its cheaper to build surface spaces and make money on leasing the <br />spaces, I know where the users are. We need to get three things together by next week: <br />numbers from Gardner and run model with 100% tax exempt; work with Dave to modify <br />parking structure; and have true transit costs determined. We are looking at a 28/72% split of <br />common space of footprint between transit and county. Transit would have 28% of all fees. <br />Randy had a questions regarding a line item on the information received from NIlVIDC on <br />Tuesday. What makes up the architect and consultant fees of $1,244,000? Is it just architect or <br />added consultants to that amount? Craig responded it should just be architects. Randy felt the <br />amount was too high. There was no attempt to show any payments and it was not part of <br />calculation per square foot. Randy asked for further clarification. The way the budget is <br />~ intended to work was everything above Pence/Kelly bid has been committed to and everything <br />below is a clean slate assuming breaking ground tomonow. <br />Randy understood we were looking forward from October 1 and the first three line items were <br />what county paid to date, transit paid to date, and committed to date. Arbuckle should be in the <br />committed. The balance of what we owe Arbuckle is not $1.2 million and Leonard confirmed <br />this. MNIDC didn't want to get into money that has gone back and forth, but look at total <br />project costs. We want you to look at them and check our figures. Elyn had discussed one item <br />with Mike regarding an omission and calculation on soft costs this morning. <br />Dan said they took total project cost and Mike netted against that as the only way to sort out past <br />transactions. It was the most difficult part for MNIDC to construct the past and make it as <br />understandable as possible. Additional discussion followed regarding what has been paid to <br />Arbuckle to date and contract for interim at 6% of whatever hard costs are determined to be. Per <br />NIlVIDC the amount includes the complete project, what's been done to date and what is going to <br />be spent. Hard costs used were $20 million. Randy is still reading the model that we would be <br />paying over $1.6 million in architect fees. It was not clear if the hard costs used in calculation <br />were $20 million. According to the model the other day with hard costs of $19.5 million, did <br />that assume county was paying 100% of fees? Where do I find if the fee is prorated? Without <br />knowing the allocation for transit, MNIDC said total project is "X", transit's funds were <br />subtracted and that was how you ended up at $19. 5 million. <br />~ Page 5 of 7 <br />