Question and Answers to Issues Courthouse Square

Home Browse Search

' . . , e ~m 0 ~i ' - EXHIBIT 20 . ' . To: Board of Diredors Fr,om: R. G. Andersen-Wydcaff, General Manager Dat~ April 29,1997 R~ Courthouse Square CONFIDENTIAL After this moming's artide in the StatesmaMloumal, i fett I should update yau on the Cou~thouse Square projed management issue. This iniorrriation is highly oonfidential so I ask you to piease not leave this memo laying around where others might read it The primary issue at fhis point is a d"rfference of opinion between the pubiic bodies (Marion ' County/Salem Transit) and Dan Berrey over tf~e type of services to be perfarr~ed ~ the area of project management, and the value of those servioes. There is no dispute as to Mr. Beme~s perf~ormanoe and that he has been a valuable member of the Development Team, nor that he oould provide continuing ' services to the projed. It is, however, the c~ompensatory value of those servioes whic:h has caused negotiations to reach impasse. ' Mr. Beirey maintains that, though his role as a"develop~" has changed from the original conoept, his levei of responsibility and, therefore, his compensation are undianged. We d'~,sagree. Though Mr. Berre~s RFP response suggested that there were several options which the County and Transit oould exerase which would reduce fhe overail cost of the projed to the two public bodies, the t~ee he ' proposed in the RFP response was justified on the basis of financial responsibdities, risk, and liab~ity which are no longer apparent in the project. , Mr. BeRey has grounds to be upset by the cument arcumstances because we are now a year into the project and ready to break ground and just now surfacing the fee issue. Hawever. as our fmancial and legal counsels have panted out, the final oonoept and structure of fhe projed a~ly became apparent in the past three weeks and it was at that point that they noticed an inoongruity belwee~ tlie cument ' projed structure and the previously proposed fee. There is no argument that the fee proposed by Mr. Berrey was warranted under the original "develope~' concept ' In faimess to M~. Barey. who has maintain~ all along that his proposed fee was equitable f~ the servioes and risk invdv~. the public partners acquired the assistance of an independent consultant in the field of project management Without revealing to this oonsuftant what Mr. BeRe~s proposed fee ' was, we outlined 1he services pe~fa~med to date by M~. BeRey and those yet to be pefiom~ed. In addition, after outlining the cxiginal concept a~d the metamorphosis which has taken place over the past year, we inquired of the consultant as to what services he felt were necessary from a projed ma~ager ~ • Page 1 ~