Courthouse Square Internal Staff Team Minutes

Home Browse Search

From: Edwin Peterson <epeterso@willamette.edu> To: BILLY WASSON <BWASSON@MAIL.OPEN.ORG> ~ Date: 3/18/98 3:33pm Subject: Re: Billy Wasson's e-mail of Mar 18, 1998 Mr Wasson wrote us earlier today. His message is set forth below. Where he asks a question, my answer is set forth following his question. I also have some other comments. My comments/answers/questions are set forth between marks like these:___________________________________ But first, Mr Wasson....l suggest that you provide the information to SPOC in two installments. One installment now, and one installment no later than one week before the next meeting. All materials should be three-hole punched on the left side, and tabbed with appropriate identifying marks. I leave it to Sheryl's judgment whether we need another notebook. My questio~s/responses/answers follow. I repeat, my answers are set forth like this: EJP answer/commenUquestion On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, BILLY WASSON wrote: > LET ME LAY OUT OUR ACTION PLAN TO THE QUESTIONS POSED IN THE > IiVTERIM REPORT, 1 WILL IIST BY THE SAME NUMBERING SYSTEM IN ~,r > YOUR REPORT: > 11. Transit is working with architects and meNin mark to relate their > needs to space standards...completion date 3/26 > 12. Finance and Bond Counsel meeting with spoc. I will arcange once we > have a meeting date scheduled. > 13. Feasibiliry study is completed (actualty done in 1996) lJntil recenty 1 > did not know the document existed. We are up dating it and this update > will be done 3/26 Response to Wasson No 13: Please send a copy of the 1996 study now, unless it is too long. If the study itself is very long, is there an Executive Summary? If the study is 40 pages or less, please send it to all of us. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 14a. John and I will meet with the City Parking District staff over the next > week and woric the issues with them. As is related to the broader > question of the developabil'ity (I am not sure this is a word!) of the North > end of the bbck we will have the RFP soliciting a private developer > drafted by 3/26. It is our view that the question can not truly be > answered until we solicit proposals. this would take several months over > this spring/summer. It is our view that this issue should not hold up the ~ > rest of the project. Our consultants (costic arbuckle and melvin mark) do > not see a problem with the North block development.