Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)

Home Browse Search

We could potentially be playing games with streetscape funds. Political problems could surface as well. We should float the three designs, 278, 324 or 368. On the 274 structure, everything is under ~ the footprint, not out to the curbs. If we choose the smaller design, the city would not be involved and that eliminates another risk factor. We may need to make our decision based on econoomics. We currently don't have any numbers on the costs for the 278 structure. We assume it would save us money. For county any space above the 200 count provides no revenue to the project. We need to be able to provide 3/1000 for office leasing opportunities. It is a premium to pay at $12,000 per stall now. Rick has looked at parking and can come up with higher ratio with a float factor. With restripping and a 15 % float mazgin on the elcisting courthouse structure, we can make it pencil out better. County is convinced it needs to maintain 3/2000 ratio, or otherwise jeopardi~ze our ability to fully lease space and be competitive with other projects. Counry can live with 278 and other options, but we have too much expansion space to live with it. Can we cut 25,000 sf? We tried to sell to the Senior Service Agency and we cannot compete with their other options. Discussions went back to cost estimating. Clarification was made on where the hearing room costs were placed. The June numbers had a shell cost of $20 million and the heazing room added at $319,000. The square footage of the hearing room was added in the TPs. TI's wouid be $24/sf for standard and you would probably be looking at $35/sf for TI's on the hearing room. You will still need to add data telecommunications numbers to the $24 figure. The mechanical special bid is in the shell cost, as well as roof gardens, atrium, etc. Bob had number per work station a few months ago. It is an empty conduit system going in, no costs are figured in yet. We aze trying to get the penetrations identified right now, then work on what type of gutters, etc., and get ready for Bob's part to pull wires. Those numbers are missing. This should be treated as a separate line item from TI costs. Curt and Dave need to send MMDC a copy of the inclusions and exclusions used in the upgraded numbers provided today for the 324 and 368 parking designs. Dan asked Leonard if he had a design that scales back the building by 25,000 sf. or do you have notion on how to do that? No, there is not a clean unit to take off. We are still hoping that Randy can ~nd the 3rd party who is interested in purchasing this space. We have looked at chopping the building, but shell costs go up. Understanding that it is unfair to ask Pence/Kelly what the price impact would be, but would it go down proportionately? The footings are still thete and it would depend on where you take the square footage. On the Chemeketa side there is a lot of wall for small square footage. Another way to look at it, would be to take a piece off the fourth floor, cut vertically and would eliminate the footings. You could cut as much as 6,000 sf per floor, then you would get close. Taking the Chemeketa wing vertically back to the four story section with 15,000 sf on tvvo floors, you would not lose the floor area that is retail wing on the north side. We need to cut office lease space more than anything else. This meeting may not produce the result to cut off a section of the building. If that would make it work, we need to look at it. The footprint is the same regardless of what is built above. The parking ratio gets better if the building is smaller, either 278 or 324. Looking at Curt's numbers in early June vs. today, we have all been hoping by going to P1 we would see $1 million in savings, but it is not showing up. We can move from one part of the project to Page 5 of 10