Courthouse Square Internal Staff Team Minutes

Home Browse Search

who showed interest in this position. CAC membership will be comprised of two SPOC committee members, transit and county will each have an opportunity to select a member and then a member ~ at large will be appointed jointly by both boards. The two boards will meet to discuss potential candidates for this committee to provide mutually agreed upon representation. Staff reviewed the Charter as drafted and made recommendations for changes. The committee will change from five to seven members: with two from the SPOC committee, one appointed by each board and three general members appointed jointly by both boards. Discussion about the functions of the committee centered around who will bring issues before the committee and substituting "project teams" for Development Team in the first two paragraphs of Functions of Committee. Concerns were raised about who would set the agenda, staff the group and having the 7oint Coordinating Team decide what issues are presented to the advisory committee. It was decided that CAC will meet once a month jointly with the Joint Coordinating Team providing a more interactive, team-oriented role for this committee. Wording shall be changed to remove written reports. The quorum for CAC will be four out of seven members. The statement regarding dissolution of CAC will be added into the body of the Charter. 3. che le Craig Lewis distributed copies of a Preliminary Schedule for Courthouse Square to reflect a more realistic start date with mobilization beginning on 4/27/98. During a Development Team meeting earlier in the morning, this schedule had some changes made. Line item #4, Review/Approve Design Development Documents will be given some additional time. Items #4 &#5 overlapped, but it was felt an additional 10 working days would be given to item #4. Items #13-15 bond financing will slip out 15 working days, because of days added above. A question was raised as to when would we lock in the interest rates. Melvin Mark consulted directly with Ed Einowski directly for time frames, but did not ask this specific question. Streetscape and the RFP for the north block development have not been included on this schedule. The RFP would be added in at the end of the year. There still needs to be discussion on the pros and cons of the timing of the RFP. Melvin Mazk felt it was necessary to wait until a contractor has been identified, bonds have been sold and the project is off and running. By removing the unknowns of the project, it should generate more interest from developers. R.G. Andersen-Wyckoff presented an alternative to put out a RFI or RFQ to probe the market and see what kind of interest is out there now. SPOC's strongest criticism of the project is that it started out as a joint venture by bringing in private development on the north side and they wanted to see what is being done about it. There is also concern that transit's last FTA grant is based on joint development with private enterprise as well. Issuing a RFURFQ will provide transit with some documentation of showing interest for that portion of the project. The political side of the issue also has to be considered. The RFP issue clearly cannot be decided today, but it was given an opportunity to expose the strengths and weaknesses of choice. This will be a good issue to run by the advisory committee for review. It ultimately will be an important policy decision that elected officials will be making. ~ Page 3 of 4