Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Cohen said the recent change in the planning horizon from 2008 to 2010 raised a number of issues. He said council would be updated on the design, public involvement process, and public opinion research in order to inform its discussion. He referred to the project values and position statement and said the goal was to develop a compelling vision of a city hall complex inspired by an intense public involvement process and reflecting community values. He said four key design drivers had emerged: sustainability, sense of welcome, efficiency and planning for the future; design options had been distilled to two and each of those would be depicted with two variations. He said variation "a" represented immediate consolidation and variation "b" represented incremental consolidation. He said both options could accommodate 25 years of growth space with expansion capability, offered underground parking and were models of universal accessibility. Mr. Macy and Mr. Simpson used a series of drawings to illustrate the design options for a new facility on the current City Hall site. Mr. Cohen stated that pursuant to council direction in October, the design team moved forward with planning for a patrol facility on Site E, near the intersection of 2nd Avenue and Garfield Street. He said a two-story facility would accommodate patrol function needs and preserve sufficient parking on the site for fleet and personal vehicles. He said the site met all of the requirements for a patrol facility and could be adapted to a precinct facility in the future. Facilities Manager Mike Penwell reported on the status of the three potential patrol facility sites: D, E and F. He said the owners of sites D and F were not interested in selling; Site E was owned by Lane Transit District (LTD), which was willing to make approximately 3.5 acres of the site available, contingent on approval by the board of directors. He said there had been discussions with General Services Administra- tion (GSA) regarding use of a portion of the federal building for municipal courts and related offices. He indicated that the Veterans Administration was interested in the space and GSA was expected to make a decision in 30 to 45 days. Mr. Cohen said the cost of immediate consolidation was estimated at $188 million and incremental consolidation at $154 million; those costs were based on real designs and escalation to a 2010 construction start, as well as construction to LEED silver standards for the patrol Facility and LEED GOLD or even PLATINUM for the City Hall. In response to questions from Mr. Poling, Mr. Cohen said an eight percent annual inflation factor was used in the cost estimates. He said if the federal building were not available, that would require redesign of the City Hall facility and recalculation of costs. Ms. Bettman commented that the City would not own the federal building space and the Atrium Building would become a liability if the City could not dispose of it to help offset the $188 million cost. Mr. Cohen pointed out that was one option and the design team would return in March 2008 with more information about options and variations for incremental consolidation. Mr. Pryor indicated his preference for the symbolism and welcoming design of options 1a and 1b. Ms. Taylor said she liked option 1 and was in favor of using space in the federal building. She thought landscaping should consist of large trees instead of trees that could be easily removed. She asked if the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2007 Page 3 Work Session