My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Question and Answers to Issues Courthouse Square
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Question and Answers to Issues Courthouse Square
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:48:22 AM
Creation date
9/6/2011 10:10:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10326
Title
Question and Answers to Issues Courthouse Square
Company
Transit Board
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Committee
Project ID
CS9601 Courthouse Square Research
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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
., 1~/17/97 11:07 $503 588 5495 HUMAN RESOURCES ~ 006 <br />' ' <br />RG added that within the Environmental Assess, the engineets had established a footprint of the lanes of bus <br />' traffic entering from the stree~ ~Vhen mapping it out, RG found they had overstated and it has been sent <br />___ __ back. We cari save 20 feet across the block, which opens a greater footprint to the County and commercial <br />use. <br />1 ~--- <br />Bob asked if someone is addressing issue of cost of the project He pointed out the difference of 10 million <br />in the two proposals. <br />' <br />RG respc~nded that he and Randy had discussed this. In comparison, SABA included no demolition costs. <br />Pntdential did. Neither had a childcare facility included. Parking spaces were also taken into consideration. <br />' In comparison, they are pretty close. Prudential's proposal still comes out at a lower oost to the County and <br />to Transit SABA has an expensive roofing system. RG statod he is not satisfied with either design. <br />~ Randy added that Prudential gave additional cost rP.ductions. Prudential is asking if we would consider <br />COP's. <br />, RG added that he is also getting these calls. <br />~ David Glennie expressed concern as to why they need to pay someone for market raze financing. <br />Randy stated that there is no way to go back to the public to get money. <br />' David stated that he questions the County's position on going out and signing long term leases. <br />' There was general discussion around long term leasing capabilities of the County and the facility process. <br />u David stated that it is issues like this that are the reason we cannot pass bond measures: building and <br />shuffling money that comes from the taxpayers. <br />' Rand re <br />y sponded that he is not sure we are precluded from doing that. <br />' RG stated that this is something we should be asking the developers. His board does not feel in any way that <br />they are signing on the line. If it does not pan out, they will pull out <br />, David responded that with 7 million, Transit is covered. <br />~ RG responded may not be the case. The County has 5 million in property. Transit is going to buy part of <br />the properly to help bring down the cost. <br />' David stated that we are essentially handing someone a franchise and paying them for it' <br />Bob questioned if David was concerned because this is omitt$d from the pmposals. <br />1 David stated that his ' concern is that we are a' a load. <br />P~Y P Y~g <br />~ RG stated that this discussion should take place after the interviews. Both parties are going way beyond <br />their progosals. <br />' Randy responded that the perspective David is giving him is essentially What options does the County and <br />~' ransit really have. There are still oppurtunities to fashion some agreements and there is the need for some <br />expertise in formulating these agreements. <br />~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.