Task force demands clarity on whether Regional 1 will be rebuilt, replaced or newly developed and why costs rose

Task force members repeatedly asked for a clearer definition of what the county resolution and current planning mean by a "rebuild." Is the project a renovation, a tear-down-and-replace, or an entirely new development on a different plot of land? Attorney Ben Turner told the group that the original concept included a mix of new construction and renovations and that funding assumptions have changed since the project was first discussed.

"From my understanding, it's still a a rebuild, but also... that would be more along the lines of a replacement," Ben Turner said, explaining the mix of renovation and new towers contemplated earlier in planning documents. Turner said he had reviewed documents related to the project and that signatures for a land transaction are in progress, and he committed to returning with clearer documents and answers.

Chef Wilburn (ELC representative Shep Wood in the transcript) and other members asked what metrics supported the original $350,000,000 request and how that figure rose in the budget book to a higher number. A task force member read aloud a figure they heard in the budget book as "$5.00 $8,000,000," which participants interpreted as about $508,000,000 and asked attorneys and staff to reconcile the discrepancy with supporting cost bases such as square footage or scope changes.

Members asked the subcommittees to produce specific end goals defining success (for example: number of local hires by job class, number of contracts awarded to local firms, or the scope of renovation vs. new construction). No final determination was made during the meeting; the attorney said he would follow up with the requested documents before the next meeting.