Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)

Home Browse Search

By making the retail development stand alone, we can go out for bonds as soon as possible. ~ From a construction point of view starting six months behind, the retail section could still be completed at the same time. Some assumptions on the pad and loading requirements will need to be developed to provide fle~bility with this phase lagging behind the base project by up to six months. Consideration needs to be given to structural capability for maximum usage and parking access as well. Melvin Mark and Arbuckle will set down and work out these details. R.G. added the issues of no access from the rear of the retail building and future liability on noise need to be considered as well. The project needs to retain control over these issues, not the developer. Alan had another issue of dealing with the ownership of condominiums with parking below the retail and how it would be handled. We are looking at land lease, unless there is a more favorable option that comes forward in the RFP process. Allocation of parking will be a maximum and we will open as many avenues for parking options to the developers in hopes of receiving better proposals. Another issue to consider would be any city t~ incentives that would apply to this project. Discussion ensued about the different options that could be available to potential developers and reference to the different tax incentive programs available should be included in the RFP. The tea.m will be given an opportunity to review the RFP before it goes out to ensure that all issues are covered. Pricing In working on pricing the project, we need to be able to identify the costs for the vazious ~ components. With the parking structure, we need to know where it stops and where the building costs begin. The following items will need separate identification: parking, office space, retail space, streetscape, and tenant improvements. The bus mall area was left off of the Agenda items listing. The first go round has to include all costs attributed to the bus mall. They have a target of $9 million and we want to use it all. If there are issues that are policy questions on where to charge an item, let us know and we can work them out. In dealing with the bus mall, be honest and clear on assumptions so we know where we are. Code issues and security on the north bus wall were discussed. Dave asked for direction on how to get to agreement for determining the components for separation of pricing. A meeting between Melvin Mark, Arbuckle Costic and Pence/Kelly will take place to work on the components. Streetscape dollars have been set at $1.3 to $1.4 million dollars in the city's budget. Plans are to still submit line item breakouts and push for all the dollars we can get. Hatfield Plaza is now two small areas. We may want to put the clock tower into the streetscape budget. The clock tower on the west side is part of the support for the security gates. Another base similar to the clock tower will be used on the east side. Are we still pricing three options: 4, 5 and 6 story buildings? The premise still is: can we build the building. We don't want to focus on one particular design, and then find out if it comes in over budget, we are back at the beginning. Discussion was held about dropping the 6 ~ story version as it has functional deficiencies. Using the 5 story version as a base, the parking or the mall won't change. There is a slight modification in structural design between the 4 and 5 Page 2 of 4