Laserfiche WebLink
COURTHOUSE SQUARE DESIGN TEAM <br />7/10/97 MEETING 1:30 PM <br />~ Present: Dan Petrusich, Melvin Mark Development Company presiding; Byron Court, Ron <br />Bakker, Craig Lewis, MI~~IDC; Randy Curtis, Marion County; R.G. Andersen-Wyckoff, John <br />Whittington, Salem Area Transit; Bill Annen, Kathleen Thorpe, Centurywest Environmental; <br />Leonard Lodder, Arbuckle Costic Architect; Curt Pence, Dave Hays, Pence/Kelly Construction; <br />and Dan Berrey, Prudential Real Estate. <br />Agenda for Meeting <br />Review of Action Items <br />Schedule <br />Dan opened the meeting with a briefing of Wednesday's environmental meeting and the <br />discussions of possible elimination of P2 (two level) parking structure. The environmental <br />meeting was attended by representatives for Marion County, Salem Area Transit, Melvin Mark <br />Development Co., Centurywest Environmental, and the attorneys used by Courthouse Square. <br />The parking garage pricing options provided by Pence/Kelly were discussed. The four options <br />include: P 1 level, P2 level with tub and 4' slurry slab, P21eve1 with tub and 24" reinforced slab, <br />and P2 with tank and drainage. We have a lot of environmental issues to deal with for P2 and <br />also complications from the Statesman 7ournal site across street. <br />Rick Williams, MNIDC, has looked at the possibility of adding additional spaces in the cunent <br />~; structure at the courthouse, along with increased spaces in P 1 level by building out under the <br />sidewalks. These two options could provide the possibility of expansion to 400 spaces without <br />going to P2. The consensus of the meeting yesterday is that P2 is gone and we are working to <br />maximize P1 and get the parking that covers the project needs. <br />Randy added that he was not expecting a decision to be made yesterday. Discussions with <br />Staxesman Journal (S~ have ended and no agreement was reached. It was determined that best <br />solution was to not pursue this avenue further and there is no way to quantify the environmental <br />issue involved. It presents a long term contingent liability to county and transit. Our concern <br />now is the de-watering issue, since it appears we can reestablish a reasonable amount of parking <br />with P 1 and other options available to us. With a cost per stall at $20,000 without de-watering, <br />then we add $1.1 million just for the bathtub option, we keep adding to the total project costs. <br />Is a bathtub needed if we go with P1? If we were to build P2 and eliminate environmental risk <br />from the Statesman Journal, there is need of a bathtub design. Without environmental risk you <br />wouldn't need a 4' slab and you could pump water as the state did with their structure. The <br />situation creates liability for drawing the plume from SJ and then you have to treat contaminated <br />water. You can look at dealing with the hydrostatic pressure three ways: pump it, with <br />environmental risk; and use two different forms of bathtubs. <br />Have the costs been determined to add to ezisting structure at the courthouse? We may not <br />have to add to it. By working with the new P 1 design, then re-striping and a change in <br />~ management in the existing courthouse structure, we may have all the parking needs met. County <br />has 50 spaces available and could possibly go to 75. <br />Page 1 of 10 <br />