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
~ ~ ~ , ~~~ <br />' <br />___ ____ ___ __. to get us from the original starting point to today, and from today to the end of construc~ion. This gave <br />' us a check on the level of services required. We then asked the consultant to give us the ma~icetplace <br />fees for such services if being provided by his own company or "brand x" The consultanYs fees <br />matched those we had heard from others in the industry and from our financial and legal counsels. <br />There was substantial differential between the marke~lace and Mr. Berre~s proposed fee. The <br />' difference could amount to $1-million dollars. <br />Obviously, as public servants, Randy Curtis and I could not by any stretch of the imagination justify <br />' such a large discrepancy and conciuded that, if Mr. Berrey was unable to match the marketplace fee, <br />we should negotiate a settlement with Mr. Berrey for services performed and retain the servioes of <br />another project manager at the maeketplace rate to oomplete tlie project. Mr. Bemey decGned to accept <br />' a lower fee, and thus the impasse. We are now entering tt~e settlement negotiation Qhase. The ac~ual <br />settlement may exoeeci what tfie ma~lcetplace compensation for those senrices would have bcen, but <br />inasmuch as we were all wo~lcing together in good faith, ~nd oonsidering fhe t~se of litigaation, a <br />somewhat higher compensation may be warranted. However, ou~ beginning pasipon will refled the <br />' ma~icetplace value of tl~ose services. The actual negotiations will be handled by our legal oounsels <br />inasmuch as Mr. Bemey has potential ongoing intere.sts a~ the project upon whidi he and Randy Cufis <br />and I must be able to work oo~tively, for the best ~te~e.st of tlie project, and having Randy and I <br />' negotiate the settleme~t could be oontrary to that ongoing relationship. Be~ Fethe~ston Hn'll. therefore, <br />be Salem TransiYs negotiator. I have inf+ormed FTA of tt~is issue and we do not f~+esee any difficul6es <br />there. In fad, our questioning of the use of public funds to pay a potent'rally inflated project <br />management fee was in our favor. rather than the opposite. <br />' The SJ artide said we were "dumping" Mr. Berrey. That is not true. There is an ho~est differe~ce of <br />opinion on the oompensation i.ssue. How Mr. Berrey values his time and servioes is his business and <br />' we do not in any way question his personal value. Our ~esponsib~ity, however, is to spend the public's <br />money in acoordance wffh aocepted marketplace norms and it is thene that the two value systems <br />collide. Randy Curtis and I do not feel we have the prerogative nor justification to aocept a fee level that <br />' outpaces the marketplace, even if we believed personally that Mr. Berrey is worth i~ <br />While we are negotia6ng a settlement, which we have proposed go to binding art~itration ff we cannot <br />~each mutually acceptable agreement, Randy Curtis and I will assume the pnojed ooordinatior~ ro1e <br />' previously perFom~ed by M~. Berrey. We will begin developing an expedited selection process to ~tain <br />the servic~s of another project manager, this week It will probably take us three weeks to a month to <br />final'¢e the selecfion, however. <br />' Mr. Berrey still has a oontract with Marion County to complete the th~ee aoquisiti~ons the Cainty needed <br />to have ownership of the entire Senator Block, and to act as the County's agent in handling all the <br />relocation of businesses and residents o~ the block. In addition, the County has a cuRent contrad witli <br />' Mr. Berrey to act as their agent in leasing the Count~s expansion space witliin the new building. <br />Though Salem Transit also has expansion spaoe to lease, we do not cu-rently have a contract with <br />anyone as our leasing agent. We will not do so until the current issues a~e resolved. <br />' Mr. Ben-ey also has the first right of refusal to own the private retail faa'lities on the ground floor of <br />Courthouse Squa~e. In order to retai~ this right he will be ~equired to meet oertain timelines with resped <br />' to his financial commitrnent to that pordon of the project. Randy Cu~tis and I are woiicing on 'Wvhat iP <br />plans in the event Mr. Berrey deades not to participate or is unable to meet the financial dmelines. <br />• Page 2 <br />Co~'idential Memo <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.