My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: City Hall Complex Priority Issue
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 07/19/06 Work Session
>
Item A: City Hall Complex Priority Issue
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:00:28 PM
Creation date
7/13/2006 2:23:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/19/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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).
View images
View plain text
Impact on Overall Project Financing <br />? <br /> <br /> - Capacity to result in a passing bond measure, capacity to receive other funding through <br /> revenues or grants <br />Cost <br />? <br /> <br /> - Initial construction, life-cycle, project-related costs, savings from consolidation (both <br /> staff efficiencies and energy/maintenance costs of multiple buildings) <br /> <br />Results from the Indication of Preferences at Community Forum: <br />In a small group format, community members discussed the six options and were asked to <br />consider the pros and cons of each. After small and large group discussions, attendees indicated <br />their preferences using remote control technology (refer to Attachment B for images of the six <br />options). The results are: <br /> <br />Option Explore option further Eliminate this option <br />Renovate Option 1 17 people 57 people <br />Renovate Option 2 16 people 59 people <br />Hybrid Option 1 23 people 52 people <br />Hybrid Option 2 35 people 39 people <br />New Option 1 58 people 16 people <br />New Option 2 32 people 44 people <br /> <br />The question “How would you rate your emotional attachment to our current City Hall facility?” <br />was also asked, with the following results: <br />No sense of attachment: 41 people <br />? <br /> <br />Some sense of attachment: 19 people <br />? <br /> <br />Great sense of attachment: 15 people <br />? <br /> <br /> <br />Additional Cost Information: <br />The council requested the design team to provide additional cost information such as land, <br />demolition, relocation, and life cycle costs (utilities and maintenance) for each option. The <br />following costs include the initial project costs and all of the above items. Life cycle costs <br />include 50 years of utilities and maintenance shown in 2006 dollars (refer to Attachment C for an <br />expanded summary of costs): <br /> <br />Renovation Option 1: $189,623,600 <br />Renovation Option 2: $198,935,900 <br />Hybrid Option 1: $183,146,400 <br />Hybrid Option 2: $174,749,400 <br />New Option 1: $169,707,300 <br />New Option 2: $174,243,800 <br /> <br />Sustainability: <br />Options were studied in relation to sustainable design features, energy use, and recycling/reuse. <br />General findings include: <br />New options provide maximum flexibility and thus the greatest potential to incorporate <br />? <br /> <br /> sustainable design features such as daylighting, passive ventilation, ground water heat <br /> recovery, and stormwater management. <br />L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060719\S060719A.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.