Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)

Home Browse Search

another which might help partners, but the bottom line of a$20 million building, minus TI's, legal, architectural fees just won't work. Some things have gone up in cost, i.e., HVAC by $300,000 that ~ is necessary for separate loop for retail. Retail is triple net lease and there is no way to bill back charges on triple net lease. Dave was asked to walk through the azeas where there were changes. Taking out P2 should have been a bigger savings. Going to P1 would save $750,000, but there were also changes in mechanical with two units added on roof, extra loop system, etc., that added costs to the project. Some items were moved from TI to shell. Some additional items covered included using Leonard's numbers for net space for county. There haven't been any savings frpm our original budget. The building from the ground up has not changed, but the changes have occurred from the ground down. For comparison, look at the parking gazage calculation on the 377 model at $3,924,000, cost per stall at $12,397. The earlier number was $4,673,000, a savings of $749,000. The cost per stall is not that much different. If we went to the 278 option, what are your thoughts in terms of cost per stall, should I still be thinking $12,000 per stall? Potentially it could go up. The efficiency is lower, but marginal cost for the extra 50 spaces is still pretty high. We would still have to shore and add the elevated deck over the sidewalk. Shoring is a big issue. The 278 option may be more economical, and would not require shoring. It may not be as efficient on squaze feet per space, but cost per stall may be lower. Dave and Randy both did some recalculations. MMDC requested a copy of exclusions and list of assumptions used to generate these numbers. They also requested a copy of the diagram he used on the board to illustrate what costs went where in the building. Based on discussions held earlier this week, work is being done on developing a tazget number to work towards. Scott had one change that Mark made, but dcesn't know why. There aze some enors in the models that they are running. Randy stated we are about $2.5 million over budget, but may be closer ~ to $3.5 million. What we need to do with Scott and Mark would be to work backwards to get our target number. Determine the revenue we can reasonably expect to generate from this project and then translate it into building costs. There have been some savings in these numbers coffipared to a few weeks ago. With saving another $500,000 with a smaller parking structure, we are still $2.5 million over budget. What about future space, are you including money to finish it out? An allowance will be included as part of the budget. We can generate from $1 to 1.5 million in savings playing with the numbers. I just don't see where we get $2 million in savings out of this design. TI's cost $1.8 million and include something for non leased spaces. We have included expansion TI of $20 per sf on lease space, and we can't rent it without it. Dan added that there are other areas to save money. Mechanical can be scaled back, but it won't close the gap. Dces scaling back the buiiding by 25,000 sf get closer? By going back to the 278 design and float margin on existing courthouse structure, we can get parking ratios. County carries a potential risk in carrying unleased space; we need to carry reserves in the budget for this. It doesn't appear that this design can be efficiently cut back by 25,000 sf. There are options according to Leonard. Some time ago a quick scheme was put together for Dan B, that looked at expanding the Court St. wing out to Church and filled in on the 2°d and 3`d floors as reitail bonus, then take the 4`~ floor off the building. It would gain 16,000 sf, but loose 42,000 sf on the 4`~, with a net drop of 27,000 sf in floor area. This would then put the conferencing center back in closer proximity to the commissioners' office. There is always potential to build on top later on. ~ Page 6 of 10