My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:47:33 AM
Creation date
9/6/2011 10:03:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10302
Title
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
BLDG Date
8/19/1997
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Committee
Project ID
CS9601 Courthouse Square Research
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.
/
430
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
Dave had one last design idea to share that would incorporate a parking garage on the 2"d and 3`a <br />floor with office space above that and retail on the ground floor. IVIlVIDC's headquarters <br />~ building, Columbia Squaze, is designed that way. It would be an efficient use of space. One <br />of the original designs submitted for the RFP for the project included this scenario. This option <br />was discussed and diagrams were used to illustrate some potential options. The building is at <br />102 feet and it would need to be massaged to a full 124 feet to make it work. <br />Concerns were expressed that we need to know when to stop and not investigate to death. We <br />need to increase revenues and also decrease cost per square foot. If we compromise too much, <br />no one will want to use it. <br />Recap of assignments has Dave repricing the cut back of the parking structure to the retail wall <br />on the north end of the site. Leonard will get a parking count and a plan to remove this section. <br />Additional discussion of adding to the existing Courthouse pazking structure was dismissed as <br />preliminary costs were not cheap and this design is not an efficient one to begin with. <br />Randy announced that the groundbreaking planned for October 30~` has been given up for now. <br />If and when we have a sound project that will work, we can talk about this later. <br />Will you continue to remediate? County will continue as long as we believe we are working <br />towards the goal of building this project. We are looking at about $250,000 in expense to <br />proceed. If the project was stopped today, the county would be obligated for over $3 million <br />~ for the project. We would have to find the money to pay the debts obligated to the project: <br />repay FTA and transit for one. Expenses can't keep running up. <br />There is conf'idence that we can get close and you would have to remediate it a.nyway. There is <br />no choice on that issue. Randy will raise this issue of the upcoming expense of $250,000 with <br />the board for direction to proceed. They must make informed decisions based on what risks are <br />involved. Ken replied we are just about there budget-wise and why pose any issue to the <br />board. It will have a whole different light once the models are reconciled. Let's see where we <br />are a week from today before we raise an issue with the boazd. <br />Meeting adjourned. <br />~r' Page 7 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.