Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)

Home Browse Search

DEQ has asked them to dig to 22 feet. Their impact is an order magnitude higher than Chevron and their chemical analysis would help. It is surprising that the Statesman would do something different ~ than what DEQ requested. There is a concern that the Statesman would be overlooked and DEQ would look much more closely at the county's project. As stated before, it is hard to predict why DEQ will follow certain paths and where they will end up. This item was tabled for l~ter discussion. Demolition is progressing with 90% recycling taking place. Demolition of the parking and basements will be finished by August 15th and demobilization will take place the week of August 18th. This is not a critical issue as they may stay on the site for additional work. One additional agenda action item regarding the revised work order for GRI investigation was discussed. This data has not been turned over to any one yet. If county paid for it, they should receive it. Kathleen will see that David Hartwig or Randy get a copy and then they can disperse to other team members. Budget Pence/Kelly handed out new calculations on the two parking options of 324 and 368 s~ace counts and also a revised TI's cost estimate. The TI's were given their best shot with lcnown items per Leonard's numbers. We need to close the loop on rentable area calculations. The leasing agent wants standards to structure leases. We need to see how the load factors come out. If it will have a high load factor, we need to look at it. There was additional discussion about net county and transit space. County space has a lot of hallways put into the shell costs. Dave did a walk-through on the 324 structure. It is a 119,000 sf parking garage, with a$12,113 cost per stall. Sheer wall costs are in the building. There is no underslab waterproofing. Side wa11 and ~, footings, membrane and plaza membranes included, but stopped at top of the membrane on decks. Shell cost has bus mall and associated costs each broken down in back with descriptions on left. The contingency has been pulled out. Permits and testing are not included. We put im ailowance for security system, but have no numbers plugged in yet. The foundation is in the shell cost. Columns supporting ceiling of garage is in garage numbers, everything else is in shell. Deck under the sidewalk is in the parking structure. Dave drew a diagram on the board to show what azeas were assigned to parking and what went into shell. A policy decision may need to be made to pull some bus mall slab costs from the parking structure and allocate those costs to transit. Another possibility would be to look at the cost difference between the slab on grade and the slab for the bus mall and put that cost to transit. Our efficiency rating gces down when we move from the 324 structure. Marginal costs are going the wrong way. A more overriding decision would be do you have the money to buy extra parking at $700,000. We may not need it. We have been wrestling with the pazking design. Randy met with the city manager and public works for the city of Salem last week. They are being cooperative in finding a solution to go out to the curb line. Legal opinion says to handle with an ordinance and the planners want to treat as policy. They are focused on helping, but not sure where ta take this one. One concept they are looking at rather than revocable permit, would be to do a vacatidn to turn over this area to the county to own. It is a possibility, but must to go to city council ne~ct week. They estimate about six weeks to go through staff and back to council. Potentially this means we sit for six weeks and wait. While staff is supportive, once it gces to council, a11 bets are off. We are not quite sure how council will treat this. It could be treated as expanding parking would be a public ~ benefit or they could look for compensation for the vacation at anywhere from $2-6 per square foot. Page 4 of 10